The GeoChristian

The Earth. Christianity. They go together.

Dr. Dino still in prison

Welcome to The GeoChristian. Out of over 1000 posts on my blog, this one on Dr. Dino is visited by more people than any other.

The primary objective of The GeoChristian is to increase science literacy among Evangelical Christians, especially in the areas of the Earth and environmental sciences. I aim to discuss controversial topics in ways that are sound both Biblically and scientifically, and to do so in a way that treats all readers with respect. I invite you to click on the “Best of The GeoChristian” link at the top of this page to read more, or to go to my most recent posts.

Grace and Peace,

Kevin N (The GeoChristian)

Kent Hovind (a.k.a. “Dr. Dino”) is a well-known young-Earth creationist speaker. He is in federal prison, having served two years of a ten-year federal conviction for tax evasion. His reasoning for not paying taxes was that it was all God’s money, not his, and was therefore non-taxable. He paid his employees with cash, and then said they weren’t really employees, but that they were servants of God. Hmmmm. I wonder if he ever read how Jesus responded to paying taxes to the evil Romans? (Matthew 22:15-21). Or what Paul had to say about paying taxes, again to the Romans? (Romans 13:6-7). If Paul could advocate payment of taxes to Nero, I think Hovind can’t excuse himself from paying taxes to the US government.

Earlier this month he and his wife (who was also convicted) lost an appeal, so it looks like he’ll stay in jail, and she’ll go to jail. His supporters have a petition that they are sending to the White House, trying to get Hovind and his wife last-minute pardons from President Bush, but it looks like that won’t happen either.

I have nothing personally against Hovind, and some say that the 10-year sentence was unusually harsh. But his scientific reasoning is even screwier than his legal reasoning. Hovind’s young-Earth creation organization, Creation Science Evangelism, continues to function, with Hovind’s son, Eric, giving talks at churches and Christian schools. Kent Hovind blogs from prison.

The arguments used by Hovind and CSE are so extreme that other young-Earth organizations, such as Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research keep their distance from him. In fact, AiG’s “Arguments we think creationists should NOT use” page is aimed largely at Dr. Dino.

I still run into young-Earth creationist web sites and bloggers who think that Hovind is a wonderful apologist for the truthfulness of Scriptures. But my advice is: run the other way! Don’t use his videos in your church or school! This stuff makes others laugh at Christianity, not because of the foolishness of the Gospel, but because of the utter foolishness of the reasoning.

Grace and Peace

January 19, 2009 - Posted by | Apologetics, Geology, Young-Earth creationism | , ,

221 Comments

  1. […] on Well-Known Young Earth Creationist GeoChristian postedan update on Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino), a well-known young earth creationist who is serving jail time […]

    Pingback by Update on Well-Known Young Earth Creationist « Tough Questions Answered | January 20, 2009

  2. Dr Hovin maybe be a fool to many and so called Christians would also call him loony, he however had the courage to stand up and call a lie as a lie.
    A majority of people seem to be rejoicing over his going to prison and highlighting that as a big deal so that the attention can be taken away from the main issue that “Evolution is a lie” there are four clear cut proof of Gods existence,
    1. The existence of the Jews.
    2. The rebirth of the Jewish Nation.
    3. The discovery of real Mt Sinai in Saudi Arabia
    4. All the prophecies from the bible getting full filled

    One of the prophesy is clearly getting fulfilled today.. Jesus said they will hate you for my sake and put you in prisons(false accusations and loop holes in the law are very much part of the scheme, that is what they did to Jesus too).

    Yes Dr Hovin may have deserved to Go to prison for whatever reason but that does not change the fact that evolution is a lie.

    The truth of it is every single prophecy from the bible is getting fulfilled and nobody can change that, there will be a lot of people left on earth for God to make an example of when every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

    Today with some loophole in the law Dr Hovin has been sent to prison, just like most martyr for Christ all over the world next they will come up with the Law saying you cannot Teach the bible to your own children, then the true colors of the soft footing Christians and the ones with Zeal will be seen.

    It is better to be a Fool for the Lord than be wise in the eyes of the world

    Comment by Prem | April 14, 2009

  3. Prem:

    Thanks for your comment.

    I’m not rejoicing that Mr. (not Dr.) Hovind is in prison, but I’m not surprised either. He is not in prison because of false accusations or loopholes, but because he refused to be obedient to Romans 13:7 and Matthew 22:21. I think 1 Peter 2:20 applies as well: Hovind’s suffering is not that of a martyr but is due to his own sin and mistakes.

    Hovind said that he didn’t need to pay taxes. Jesus, Paul, and Peter all said that Christians should pay taxes. If the first century Christians were not excused from paying taxes to the Roman Empire, who is Hovind to say that he shouldn’t have to pay taxes to the U.S. government?

    Yes, it is better to be a fool for the Lord than to be wise in the eyes of the world. The foolishness is the foolishness of the Gospel, not the foolishness of 1) disobedience to the clear commands of the Bible to submit to authority, and 2) the foolishness of bad arguments in defense of Christianity, such as much of what Hovind teaches through his “creation ministry.”

    Comment by geochristian | April 14, 2009

  4. “The heart is desperately wicked” So the bible says, the intentions of your heart is known only to the Lord.

    I have cut and pasted a post of somebody else from another thread which reflects my thoughts…..

    What King David did with Bathsheba (adultery) and to Uriah (murder) wasn’t a very good witness for God, either… and King David’s wrongs were against God Himself. But, King David came through in the end.

    Kent Hovind may not have done anything against anyone, since paying taxes was never made into law, by congress or the people. Our tax system is a volunteer tax system. Investigate, and you’ll know I’m right.

    I wish, that Kent Hovind paid the taxes anyway. Only because it would keep him on the circuit. Also, since you’re not a mind reader, you don’t know Hovind’s character, attitude, or heart.

    Since he was against godless lie of evolution, and his tax dollars paying for it, I don’t see Hovind’s action as being against God. But, evolution is against God. Who really needs to repent… society for allowing Darwin’s myth to be taught without a fight, or Hovind for not want his money to fund the evolution religion?

    Comment by Prem | April 16, 2009

  5. Prem:

    You are correct: I don’t know Dr. Mr. Hovind’s character, attitude, or heart. But I do know…

    1. Jesus and Paul both told their listeners to pay their taxes, and those taxes were paid to the evil Romans. The early Christians were not told to pay taxes only if they felt like it (voluntary taxes, as you say) but to pay the taxes that the government charges, even to an unjust government. Mr. Hovind, who seems rather given to conspiracy theories in general, didn’t get this Biblical truth, and he is paying for it. He is not in jail for opposing evolution, but for not paying what he owed.

    2. Whether evolution is true or false isn’t the main issue when I think about Hovind. One can oppose evolution with rational arguments, or one can oppose evolution with silly arguments. Hovind opposes evolution often with silly arguments, but I’m not sure that he has a strong enough science background to tell the difference. And unfortunately, many Christians don’t know the difference either, so they buy Hovind’s videos and books and pass them off as evidence for the truthfulness of the Bible.

    Comment by geochristian | April 16, 2009

  6. Hello everyone,

    I do not understand all the reason why Mr Hovind did not paid his taxes. Yes, we live in America and we have to obey the laws of the land where we live in. There are some exceptions like when Daniel was told to worship the king of the land and he did not obey that law or rule.
    So, should Mr Hovind be in jail, probably yes. I wish he was not. None, the less, thanks to his ministry I regained my faith. I watched his videos, which I didn’t want to watch at first, I thought that they (the videos) would be a waste of my time. (I did not want to hear some Christian offering bible verses as proof of creation and nothing more).
    I was a devoted Christian for four years, but after arguments with atheist and the temptations of the world, and my misunderstanding of the scripture lead me to just give up. I never denied Christ, but I just fell like the bible, the word of god, was loosing its accurate historical value in my eyes.  And so I was confuse and without answers.

    Long story short, after I saw his videos “Dr Dino”, I started questioning things. Questioning scientific reasoning, yet better questioning the arguments that I was face with in my day to day basics.
    Since then, I have read many points of view in various subjects concerning the scriptures. I have spent a lot of my free time looking for better understanding of the scriptures.

    I value Dr Dino ministry. He could be wrong about not paying taxes. But his ministry is a blessing to us all.

    Thank you.

    Comment by oscar leal | May 17, 2009

  7. Oscar:

    Thanks for your comment. I disagree with your assessment of Dr. Dino, but am happy that you regained your faith.

    Blessings,
    Kevin N

    Comment by geochristian | May 19, 2009

  8. Am i missing something? What are the intentions of someone that would try to discredit a man who obviously is trying to get the Truth out. Who would gain from Dr. Hovind’s imprisonment or trying to disprove him? I would have thought Non-Christians. Yes, he was convicted on tax fraud. “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.”Romans 3:28
    Again, I have read many things on Hovinds behalf on that matter and IF it is true to some degree, does his sins make what he proclaims any less true? No, because his claims align with the scripture on all sides. He doesn’t make any claim God himself did not make through His words in the bible. Does he have theories? Yes. And you can choose to believe those or not. I believe they are founded.
    “For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.”
    Hebrews 4:2
    But why go through so much trouble to get people to “run the other way”
    He is human. He is a sinner with a human nature. Tax evasion is probably the least of his sins according to human standards. But to God’s standards we all fall short of the glory of God. Condemn the man if you feel need but don’t condemn the message. His tapes have brought many, including my husband, to the Lord. Watch the tapes again. The Truth has it’s season to be revealed to you. Pray that God reveal the truth. If nothing else, remember as Christians we all should have the same goal. To build up one another and to testify the gospel to non believers.
    Let’s work together.

    Comment by melissa | May 20, 2009

  9. Melissa:

    I rejoice that your husband, and others, have been brought to faith in Jesus Christ. My concern is that the “ministry” of Kent Hovind drives others away, either through his legal misconduct, or through the many outrageous claims he makes in his books, seminars, and videos. When it comes to my field of expertise (geology), Hovind is wrong about almost everything he says. I’m not saying that the Bible is wrong, only that Hovind is wrong.

    My goal is what you say in your conclusion: to build up the body of Christ, and to testify the good news of the gospel to nonbelievers. I believe that Hovind stands in the way of both of these objectives, especially in terms of evangelism to scientists I interact with.

    With respect,
    Kevin N

    Comment by geochristian | May 20, 2009

  10. Melissa:

    I’ll add to what I just said.

    Not only is Hovind wrong about geology, I think he goes way beyond what the Scripture says as well. For example, the Bible does not say that the Earth’s sedimentary rock record was formed by the Flood, but Hovind (and other young-Earth creationists) insist that it was, as a matter of dogma. The Bible does not say when Genesis 1:1 occurred, but Hovind insists that he knows. The Bible does not even say that evolution cannot occur, but Hovind knows that it cannot (actually young-Earth creationists do believe in incredibly rapid evolution occurring after the Flood, but within limits).

    As an old-Earth creationist, I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, in a real creation by a real God, in a real Adam in a real garden, and in a real fall into sin with real consequences. The age of the Earth, the work of the Flood, and the extent to which evolution can occur are secondary issues. I maintain that Hovind seriously distorts these secondary issues, to the harm of the church and evangelism.

    Comment by geochristian | May 20, 2009

  11. Charles Darwin was an amateur biologist at best. Charles Lyell, the “geologist” who co-conspired with Darwin in the advent of old earth theory, was also an amateur. Evidently, it doesn’t take sterling academic credentials to shake up the world. So get off Hovind’s back.

    As a professional archaeologist for 25 years, I find that Hovind raises many intriguing and provocative questions – the majority of which are not answered persuasively by establishment science.

    Perhaps it takes a scientist with a Bible to find reason to question establishment thinking, to spot its errors, and then find the temerity to question its very foundations. Its refreshing to see the Holy Church of Darwin interrogated forcefully in public view like it should have been years ago. The Darwinists have been feeding us a false world view for decades, without a truely scientific leg to stand on. So I say good for Mr. Hovind. Let us proceed and let the chips fall where they may. The correction is long overdue, and I for one am enjoying it.

    Comment by Gary Navarre | May 23, 2009

  12. Gary:

    Thanks for the comment.

    Historically, Lyell and Darwin were not involved in the widespread acceptance of “old earth theory;” it was already well-established well before their time.

    As to the accusation that they were “amateurs,” both of them made detailed and extensive observations of nature, and developed their theories based on these observations. They were not correct about everything, but they were correct about many things.

    One cannot say the same about Hovind. As far as I know, he has almost no field or laboratory experience. When it comes to my area of expertise, geology, Hovind is wrong about just about everything he says. He uses arguments that even other young-Earth creationists admit are wrong or questionable (moon dust, sea salts, Paluxy footprints, etc.). Because of his lack of field and laboratory experience, I’m not sure he can tell a good argument from a bad argument.

    So, I’m not going to “get off Hovind’s back.” His false system of apologetics is a detriment to evangelism among scientists and a poor foundation for faith for our youth.

    Using the Bible to justify his ideas makes it even worse.

    Comment by geochristian | May 24, 2009

  13. That Darwin and Lyell influenced one another, and were key figures in the general acceptance of uniformitarionism (old earth theory) is indisputable. And that both lacked professional credentials in the disciplines in which they made their major ‘contributions’ is equally indisputable. It is therefore valid to point this out when Hovind’s adversaries object to his credentials.

    So Hovind preaches the flood. So what? Jesus Christ taught the flood. Was Jesus Christ merely an ignoramus who would have preached otherwise had he merely enjoyed your splendid education? I don’t think so.

    In fact, I don’t know any major evangelist who denies the flood as written. Do you condemn them all as merely ignorant and uneducated? You seem to condemn Hovind not because he also teaches the flood, but because at the same time he offers up physical evidence as he sees it. Well his presentations have lifted the burdens of bad science (like Darwinism) from the backs of many and brought them to Christ. He must be doing something right.

    The most influential evangelist of the 20th century, Billy Graham, also teaches the flood. I am told that he didn’t receive the power to reach men’s souls until he agreed in prayer to teach biblical inerrancy. He has reached millions. By comparison, how are you doing with your scientifically adjusted version of evangelism? For of false doctrines and the teachings thereof Christ Himself warned and said “by their fruits you shall know them.”

    An archaeologist of 25 years, I believe the flood happened whether contemporary science likes it or not. Sir Isaac Newton, a believer in Bible inerrancy and held by many to have been the greatest scientist of all time, put materialist science and its problems and mistakes in perspective this way:

    “I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”

    Contemplate this while worshipping at the altar of ‘moon dust’.

    Comment by Gary Navarre | May 25, 2009

  14. Gary:

    You don’t seem to understand what I am saying. I teach Biblical inerrancy, and I teach that the Flood really happened. The Bible does not specify when the Earth was created, nor does it require a worldwide deluge that created all of the sedimentary rocks.

    As I said, even “mainstream” young-Earth creationists stay away from Hovind. Look at Answers in Genesis’ Arguments we don’t use page. This page was originally written to counteract the silliness of Hovind’s arguments, and he hasn’t changed much since then.

    The guy doesn’t know what he is talking about. The standard isn’t whether Hovind “offers up physical evidence as he sees it.” The question isn’t whether or not Darwinism is good science or bad science. The point is not whether or not Hovind converts people with little scientific background to Christ (and I praise God when people come to faith in Christ). The point is that Hovind says a lot of naive things when it comes to geology and other areas of science, and this is a barrier to evangelism of a very significant “people group,” scientists.

    Contemplate this while worshipping at the altar of ‘moon dust’.

    So is it good for Hovind to use a bad argument in defense of the truthfulness of the Bible, that keeps educated people from coming to Christ?

    Comment by geochristian | May 26, 2009

  15. Perhaps I didn’t fully understand, and I will visit your “Arguments we don’t use page”. While I do, consider this.

    The other morning I got up unusually early and tuned into a religious TV channel. I was confronted with a sort of frumpy looking, middle-aged housewife type preaching the gospel. I wasn’t exactly moved by her delivery, or her take on the particular gospel she was discussing. Her ideas were less than fully developed as far as I was concerned. But as I changed the channel, wondering how she gets the ratings necessary to stay on TV, I suddenly realized that all across America, housewives like her were tuning in and listening with great interest. She has an audience, and that’s good, because she is fundamentally right. As a Christian, the last thing I would want to do is jump all over this evangelist because her message is not exactly right according to me.

    Hovind’s message lifts many hearts, not because his audience cares so much about the intracacies of the science involved, but for a much more fundamental reason. His message, and his genius, is that the ‘God of science’ that has beat them down for so long is in fact vulnerable, and often even even “dumb.” He’s right and people love it! The relief his message brings from the tyranny of ‘inerrant’ science is liberating.

    But I’m an archaeologist and I’m intrigued too. I believe there is good evidence that the earth’s age has been vastly exagrerated. Are you sure in your denials that you are not simply being protective of your particular specialty, just like the Darwinists who are unquestionably wrong? They howl too, and make the same ad hominem accusations.

    Comment by Gary Navarre | May 26, 2009

  16. I know of no unassailable “anchor” by which we are tied with any great certainty to the age of the prehistoric past. Hovind’s views are thus just as difficult to falsify as are “old earth” theories based on uniformitarianism and Darwinism. These assumptions are supported by the following quotes from specialists all over the world.

    On Uniformitarianism To Catastrophism Among Contemporary Geologists:

    “It seems then that the popular theories of geology and the formation of the geologic column may in fact have significant flaws that might be better explained by a relatively sudden global catastrophe or closely spaced series of very large catastrophes. At least it seems like the door is open to this possibility as well as to the idea that the geologic column may not represent billions of years of earth’s history, but may in fact have been formed rapidly.” Sean D. Pitman, M.D. August 2005 . http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion

    RECORD IS CATASTROPHIC, DAVID M. RAUP, Chicago Field Museum, Univ. of Chicago, “A great deal has changed, however, and contemporary geologists and paleontologists now generally accept catastrophe as a ‘way of life’ although they may avoid the word catastrophe… The periods of relative quiet contribute only a small part of the record. The days are almost gone when a geologist looks at such a sequence, measures its thickness, estimates the total amount of elapsed time, and then divides one by the other to compute the rate of deposition in centimeters per thousand years. The nineteenth century idea of uniformitarianism and gradualism still exist in popular treatments of geology, in some museum exhibits, and in lower level textbooks….one can hardly blame the creationists for having the idea that the conventional wisdom in geology is still a noncatastrophic one.” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin (Vol.54, March 1983), p.2 1

    “THE RULE”, ROBERT H. DOTT, Presidential Address To Society of Economic Paleontologists & Mineralogists, “I hope I have convinced you that the sedimentary record is largely a record of episodic events rather than being uniformly continuous. My message is that episodicity is the rule, not the exception. .we need to shed those lingering subconscious constraints of old uniformitarian thinking.” Geotimes, Nov. 1982, p.16

    ADOLF SClLACHER, Geoiogisches Inst., Univ. Frankfurt, “This proves instantaneous deposition of the individual beds, as postulated by the turbidity-current theory….the sandy layers of the Flysch did not accumulate gradually but were cast instantaneously by turbidity currents each bed in its entire thickness, in a matter of hours or less.” Journal of Geology, Vol. 70, p. 227.

    Alan V. Jopling, Dept. of Geology, Harvard, “it is reasonable to postulate a very rapid rate of deposition; that is a single lamina would probably be deposited in a period of seconds or minutes rather than in a period of hours. …there is factual evidence from both field observation and experiment that laminae composed of bed material are commonly deposited by current action within a period of seconds or minutes.” Some Deductions on the Temporal Significance of Laminae, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp.880-887.

    “Hanging from a ceiling beam in the 40 year old building’s basement are several rows of formations not usually seen so close to ground level. Stalactites. Yep, stalactites more than 100 of the squiggly, slippery rock formations that thousands of people pay to see in places named Carlsbad and Mammoth….They are natural cave ornaments, pure and simple….Deputy Chief Ray Hawkins has been parking in the basement of the building at Harwood and Main streets since the 1960s and can’t remember a time when the mineralsickles weren’t hanging around.” Dallas Morning News, 4/4/1994, p. 13A

    Dating and Circular Reasoning:

    “Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.” – O’Rourke, J.E., “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol 276 (Jan 1976), p. 54
    “Ever since Wiliam Smith at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur. Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.” – Ager, Derek V., “Fossil Frustrations,” New Scientist, vol. 100 (11/10/1983), p. 425
    “The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.” – O’Rourke, J.E., “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (Jan 1976), p. 53
    “Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from. And this poses something of a problem: if we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?”- Eldredge, Niles, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria (New York, Simon and Schuster, 1985) p. 52
    “The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. It can be ignored, as not the proper concern of the public. (Translation: ‘You have no right to question us.’) It can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. It can be admitted, as a common practice… Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning.”

    Pragmatism:
    1) character or conduct that emphasizes practicality
    2) a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value

    “Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?”- Azar, Larry, “Biologists, Help!” Bioscience, vol. 28 (Nov 1978) pp. 714

    It seems then that the popular theories of geology and the formation of the geologic column may in fact have significant flaws that might be better explained by a relatively sudden global catastrophe or closely spaced series of very large catastrophes. At least it seems like the door is open to this possibility as well as to the idea that the geologic column may not represent billions of years of earth’s history, but may in fact have been formed rapidly. Sean D. Pitman, M.D. August 2005 . http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion

    VON ENGELN & CASTER, “If a pile were to be made by using the greatest thickness of sedimentary beds of each geological age, it would be at least 100 miles high. ….lt is, of course, impossible to have even a considerable fraction of this great pile available at any one place. The Grand Canyon of the Colorado, for example, is only one mile deep.” GEOLOGY, p.417

    BUILT BY CORRELATION, L. DON LEET (Harvard) & SHELDON JUDSON (Princeton), “Because we cannot find sedimentary rocks representing all of earth time neatly in one convenient area, we must piece together the rock sequence from locality to locality. This process of tying one rock sequence in one place to another in some other place is known as correlation, from the Latin for ‘together’ plus ‘relate'”. PHYSICAL GEOLOGY, P.181

    NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ. “And this poses something of a problem,: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?” TIME FRAMES, 1985, p.52

    J. E. O’ROURKE, “The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.”, American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, p.51

    TOM KEMP, Oxford, “A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?” New Scientist, Vol.108, Dec.5, 1985, p. 67

    DAVID M. RAUP, U. of Chicago; Field Museum of N.H., “The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity…Thus, the procedure is far from ideal and the geologic ranges are constantly being revised (usually extended) as new occurrences are found.”, FMONH Bulletin, Vol. 54, Mar. 1983, p.21

    D. B. KITTS, Univ. of Oklahoma, “But the danger of circularity is still present…. The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation….for almost all contemporary paleontologist it rest upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis.”, Evolution Vol. 28, p.466

    “The end and aim of stratigraphical geology is the elucidation of the history of’ the earth by a study of the rocks composing it… Let us now consider briefly some of the principles and methods of stratigraphical geology, in a systematic way. Two of the fundamental laws may be defined and explained as follows.
    First of all, there is the principle that certain types of deposit are correlated with certain physical and geographical conditions, and that this held in the past as in the present. This is a restatement of part of the Law of Uniformity . . . when we find among the older rocks certain well-defined types of deposit like those now being formed under known conditions, we are justified in drawing deductions as to the climatic and geographical conditions of the time when the rocks in question were formed. …
    The second great law is that organisms, regarded from the broadest biological standpoint, have developed throughout the history of the world in a certain definite order of progression from the less organized to the more organized types, from lower to higher forms of life. This of course is a mere bald statement of the general principle of evolution. From it follows the great generalization first stated by William Smith, that the ages of strata can be determined by means of their included fossils.
    It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.” (???) (R H Rastall, Lecturer in Economic Geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol.10 (Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p.168)

    “Use of the lead/uranium ratio, however, soon demonstrated its age to be more than two thousand million years,…. To some thoughtful stratigraphers this amazing discovery presented a dilemma, for if the known stratified rocks have been accumulating throughout this vast span of time the average rate of deposition must have been extremely slow, yet there is very good evidence that individual beds accumulated rapidly. Thus Schuchert ….found that if a geologic column were built up by superposing the thickest known part of each of the geologic systems in North America, from Cambrian to the present, the composite record would be about 259,000 feet thick. If we combine his results with the latest estimates of time based on radioactive minerals, we get the figures in Table 5, in which the last column indicates the estimated average rate of deposition. Internal evidence in the strata, however, belies these estimates. In the Coal Measures of Nova Scotia, for example, the stumps and trunks of many trees are preserved standing upright as they grew, clearly having been buried before they had time to fall or rot away. Here sediment certainly accumulated to a depth of many feet within a few years. ln other formations where articulated skeletons of large animals are preserved, the sediment must have covered them within a few days at the most. Abundant fossil shells likewise indicate rapid burial, for if shells are long exposed on the sea floor they suffer abrasion or corrosion and are overgrown by sessile organisms or perforated by boring animals. At the rate of deposition postulated by Schuchert, 1000 years, more or less, would have been required to bury a shell 5 inches in diameter. With very local exceptions fossil shells show no evidence of such long exposure.” PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY, p. 128.

    TIME RELATIONS?, DUNBAR & ROGERS “….though facies and faunal relations are recorded in the rocks and fossils, and their determination can be reasonable exact and objective, time relations are not so recorded, and their determination remains an ideal, toward which we strive, but which we can only approximate…. It follows that correlation, being….essentially an interpretation, is the result of personal judgment, and that it can never be wholly objective,….”, PRINCIPLES OF STRATIGRAPHY, p.272

    [… I cut out a large section that repeated previous quotes — geochristian]

    Comment by Gary Navarre | May 26, 2009

  17. Gary:

    In regards to the “frumpy housewife preacher” on TV, if she is preaching Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures, then praise God, even if you or I don’t like her style. I’m actually willing to overlook quite a bit on secondary issues. But if she is preaching “send in your check to my ministry and God will bless you” or some other form of the health and wealth “gospel,” then I hope someone is pointing out her errors.

    Hovind’s message lifts many hearts, not because his audience cares so much about the intricacies of the science… So, are you saying it doesn’t really matter if Hovind uses all kinds of goofy arguments, as long as his heart is right? Or that it doesn’t matter if he commits felonies along the way, as long as he had good intentions?

    You’re an archeologist. Hovind (and Answers in Genesis) says that the Flood occurred in about 2300 BC. Can you honestly compress all of archeology (Clovis, Jericho, Catal Huyuk, Lascaux, etc.) into 4300 years or probably much less? That is what Hovind would require of you.

    Comment by geochristian | May 26, 2009

  18. Gary:

    I won’t respond to everything from your long quote that you copied from somewhere.

    Hovind’s views are thus just as difficult to falsify as are “old earth” theories based on uniformitarianism and Darwinism. This is not true. Hovind’s views are wrong no matter what presuppositions one starts with.

    I’ll look at just one example. Hovind, like many young-Earth creationists, uses the rate that various elements are entering the oceans as one of his proofs that the Earth is young. According to this argument, if one measures the amount of salts entering the ocean and then compares that to the amount of salts that are already in the oceans, one can obtain the maximum age of the oceans.

    Here’s the problem:

    If you use this reasoning with the element sodium (part of sodium chloride), one ends up with a maximum age of 260 million years for the ocean. “Aha!” says those who use this argument, “The Earth can be no older than 260 million years.” But there are many other elements in solution in seawater, and using the same reasoning, one obtains the following maximum ages for the ocean:
    – K – 11 million years
    – Cu – 50,000 years
    – Pb – 2,000 years
    – Fe – 140 years
    – Al – 100 years
    Using this sort of reasoning, one should come to the conclusion that the oceans are no more than 100 years old! Something is obviously wrong here (at least to me, but not to Hovind, who either doesn’t understand or purposefully ignores data that doesn’t fit his system).

    What Hovind fails to take into account is the various means by which elements can be removed from the oceans. In today’s oceans, many of these elements are removed from the ocean over time as seawater circulates through the sediments and rocks in the oceanic crust. Additionally, there are huge deposits of salt in the sedimentary rock record, which is another way in which the various elements have been removed from seawater over time.

    What is going on here is not a means of determination of the age of the oceans, but a demonstration of equilibrium. Sodium goes into the ocean, sodium is removed from the ocean at approximately the same rate. The same is true for all of the elements dissolved in seawater.

    Hovind uses this faulty reasoning to sell thousands of books and DVDs (which he refused to pay taxes on because it is all God’s money).

    I could give dozens of additional examples of Hovind’s bad arguments. My concern is twofold:
    1. When we in the church use this sort of stuff for training our youth, we are setting them up for a fall. Some of them will one day learn that these are bad arguments, and they will throw out their Christianity along with their Hovind DVDs.
    2. This stuff is a serious obstacle to the evangelism of scientists.

    All that your quotes from various geologists (plus quotes from Sean Pitman, MD) say is that deposition is episodic, not one grain at a time over millions of years. A delta deposit is still a delta deposit, with characteristic, identifiable small scale and large scale features. But most of the deposition occurs during floods. That is all these geologists are saying. The same could be said for a wide variety of depositional environments, such as beaches, barrier islands, alluvial fans, lakes, deep ocean basins, floodplains, and sand dunes. Each of these has distinguishing features that can be identified in ancient rocks. Within these environments, there are features formed by short-term events, and others that are formed by slow accumulation.

    Giant floods don’t create fossilized coral reefs complete with preserved ecological zonation.

    Most of the quotes say nothing whatsoever that should point anyone to the Flood geology and young-Earth positions of Hovind.

    Comment by geochristian | May 26, 2009

  19. To geochristian:
    First, Mr. Hovind’s troubles with the IRS are irrelevant. The latter has slandered and harassed many a loyal citizen before, and is frequently under the legal microscope itself. Hovind didn’t forget to “give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, he merely feel that his activities amounted to a ministry and should therefore be exempt from taxation like any other church. His only sin may be picking more than one fight at a time. In any case, prison is hardly unknown territory for disciples of Christ. The establishment hates rebels, especially religious ones. “Judge not lest ye be judged”.

    Secondly, as for the salt question and others, I’m sure that you can find scholarly literature on Hovind’s or other creation science websites to deal with particular issues. For my purpose it is sufficient to note that all such research is by its nature subject to wildly differing conclusions depending on who prepares the work and does the thinking. This is an important part of Hovind’s message, for his genius is less about offering unassailable young earth science, than it is about revealing the immense vulnerability of the scientific establishment in all matters of origins.

    This is important, for the Bible warns us to “keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so–called” (1 Timothy 6:20). When science so-called intrudes on matters affecting personal faith it should indeed be called loudly to account. By departing the laboratory and the realm of testable hypothesis, science becomes science so-called – an intruder in this realm and rightly placed on the defensive. Its beliefs and doctrines should have been vigorously interrogated long before now, and Hovind’s approach is the proper platform and framework for debate, for it is inevitably an argument about opposing theories (no matter what you think). Here the ‘aw shucks’ country school teacher (whom you underestimate) is at his best. He doesn’t defend his religion against science, he defends his religion against theirs! The humble country school teacher freely admits that his own theory may be wrong on any given point, but in the process he effectively points out that the other guy’s religion is most certainly wrong.

    I applaud it. The effect on many thoughtful listeners is a sense of liberation from the tyranny of infallible, inerrant science – a false God in which they have placed undue faith. Is this faith hen based on lies or fundamental untruths? Not at all. First, you can be sure that Hovind believes the truth of his message, and I will assert that it is no more falsifiable than is the establishment alternative. The burden of disproving it is on you, ans so far you have only shown that you merely disapprove of it. And since people are convicted less by the scientific merits of Hovind’s theory than they are by the revelation of the vulnerability of establishment science in such matters, their faith is on solid ground. Whatever arguments continue to rage, freedom of choice in belief is restored by this understanding. Freedom from the real lies – the false teachings of Darwinism, ambiogenesis, uniformitarianism, and other doctrines of science so-called, are exposed in a public forum as little more than religious cults themselves. And the spirit being released is one of true joy, which I will assert is further evidence of its fundamental truth. For as Christ Himself said – knowledge of the truth “shall set you free.” That’s just what Hovind’s general message seems to do. Even I find myself laughing. Anything particularly emancipating about your version?

    But of course I’m not following rigorous scientific methods and thinking here. I must say, that having received the Holy Spirit only a short time ago, science does seem so very fallible to me now. Of the Bible He whispers – Inerrant! When God is up in your face, time stops and science shrinks to nothing. This becomes a real wild card in your thinking. I guess I would be surprised if God had created a world and left it to the dinosaurs for hundreds of millions of years awaiting mankind, or that He would leave us a creation story more easily grasped in full by the clever and educated, rather than the less so. The history of our God suggests that He behaves otherwise, and in fact despises pride and makes traps for the would-be wise, giving the advantage to the humble. “For He has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise” (1 Corinthians 1:27).

    Consider the foolishness of the cross. Why would an all powerful God communicate in such a way? Yet the Gospel of Christ aided by the Holy Spirit took hold of imaginations, conquering every force gathered against it, ultimately defeating the Colossus of Rome and all of its pantheon of false Gods. Ha! Our God does indeed behave like this. Don’t look for the foolishness of creationism to dissappear anytime soon.

    Of the various archaeological cultures and complexes alluded to, remember that all are reconstructions and that their chronologies are subject to change just as is the geologic column, which is certainly wildly incorrect. But it is not difficult. Even as things stand, the great empire-cultures of, for example, Mesoamerica, are already presumed to have unfolded only since about 2,000 BC, and the Mayas and Aztecs are believed to have flourished for less than a century. Formative cultures are problematic, and cultural prehistory may have happened more quickly than has been assumed. The time necessary for the peopling of the world for example has likely been badly exaggerated. Rather than a “slowly moving wave” running just ahead of the carrying capacity of the land, as we once imagined, we now know that prehistoric peoples were explorers, just as we are today. The more adventuresome were continually on the move. Modern Eskimos laugh when archaeologists suggest that they needed a land bridge to explore a north American continent that was plainly visible from Siberia. So, wither Clovis and the land bridge? Long-held theories can evaporate with a simple revelation and common sense. Beyond about 4500 years ago, radiocarbon dating can’t be reliably rectified, as is possible with tree rings in the American southwest.

    You do indeed have to be ready to consider the unthinkable, but my mind has been freed. I am no longer surprised by anything God might do. You Make creationism a hobby. Study it more thoroughly than you have. Just today the postman delivered a book to me entitled “Thousands, Not Millions” (De Young, 2005), in which all kinds of “absolute” dating methods are re-examined. We shall see what he has to say.

    Comment by Gary Navarre | May 28, 2009

  20. Quit bashing him- he has done so much for the cause of Christ. We need to quit bus rolling Christians- God hates it. All you who is without sin-

    Kent Hovind’s ministry led my husband and countless othersto the Lord. You better repent from attacking him- the enemy has come after him because he has a POWERFUL ministry. Shame on all of you.

    Comment by JULIE MILLAM | May 31, 2009

  21. Julie:

    I rejoice that people, including your husband, have come to faith in Christ through Hovind’s ministry.

    But is it OK for Hovind to use arguments that even other young-Earth creationists say are just plain wrong? Is it acceptable that these bad arguments drive many people from Christ? People will reject Christ because of the hardness of their hearts, but we shouldn’t put additional obstacles in their way.

    Comment by geochristian | May 31, 2009

  22. Kent Hovind carries out his ministry as he feels called to do so. It is ludicrous to suggest the he in any way drives people away from Christ. You are manufacturing that preposterous notion in your own mind. I suggest you worry about your own ministry and let Mr. Hovind worry about his.

    Comment by Gary Navarre | June 2, 2009

  23. Gary:

    Thanks again for your comments.

    You said Kent Hovind carries out his ministry as he feels called to do so. I could come up with a list of ministries that are run this way and end up being a disaster in one way or another.

    I suggest you worry about your own ministry and let Mr. Hovind worry about his. My ministry is to scientists, and it certainly is not ludicrous to suggest that the teachings of people like Hovind drive many people away from Christ. Because of these teachings, many scientists assume that they would have to throw their brains out the window in order to become a Christian. This is not the foolishness of the cross, but the foolishness of really bad science posing as Christian evidences.

    In an earlier comment, you said something about Hovind’s work being a ministry and therefore exempt from taxation. This is not true. If your church or ministry ran things as Hovind did, your church would lose its tax-exempt status and someone would end up in prison or heavily fined. Does your church pay its workers (secretary, janitor, etc.) under the table so they don’t have to pay taxes? After all, it is God’s work. That is the Hovind mentality. He is not being persecuted for his Christian witness, he is in jail for tax fraud.

    You said, “Secondly, as for the salt question and others, I’m sure that you can find scholarly literature on Hovind’s or other creation science websites to deal with particular issues. For my purpose it is sufficient to note that all such research is by its nature subject to wildly differing conclusions depending on who prepares the work and does the thinking.” No. As I said, even other young-Earth creationists distance themselves from Hovind and his unscientific reasoning. Hovind is quite simply wrong on this and a long list of other issues. Is this really who you want teaching our young people?

    Of the Bible He whispers – Inerrant! I affirm the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. I just don’t read into the Scriptures all of the things that young-Earth creationists do.

    Regarding Thousands, not Millions, I have a copy and have read portions of it. It is more sophisticated that some of the older young-Earth books on radiometric dating (for example, it does not include Hovind-style arguments), but it still has serious problems. The basic problem is that the entire Earth would have melted during the flood with the amount of heat generated by their accelerated nuclear decay models. There are a host of other problems as well. But I tend to go easier on these types of young-Earth creationists (even though I still think they are wrong) because they are trained as scientists (unlike Hovind), are willing to change their minds, are willing to do the hard scientific work to put together a testable model (unlike Hovind).

    Comment by geochristian | June 2, 2009

  24. Julie said: the enemy has come after him because he has a POWERFUL ministry.

    No, the federal government threw him in prison for flagrant violations of US tax laws. He was given plenty of opportunities to change his ways, but he didn’t.

    His reasoning regarding tax laws is as twisted as his reasoning on geology.

    As I said in the previous comment, “If your church or ministry ran things as Hovind did, your church would lose its tax-exempt status and someone would end up in prison or heavily fined. Does your church pay its workers (secretary, janitor, etc.) under the table so they don’t have to pay taxes? After all, it is God’s work. That is the Hovind mentality. He is not being persecuted for his Christian witness, he is in jail for tax fraud.”

    Comment by geochristian | June 2, 2009

  25. Between the two of you, I’ll take Hovind anytime. You don’t sound even slightly Christian to me. Its not people like Hovind who drive people away from Christ. More often, its angry people like you, short on charity in any form.

    You will never have a ministry approaching what Hovind has already built. Nor is there any such thing as a ministry strictly for scientists. And I have already spoken on the issue of the IRS. My opinion hasn’t changed. Now that’s the last I have to say to you, or on this matter altogether.

    Comment by Gary Navarre | June 2, 2009

  26. Gary:

    So is it OK for ministries to pay their employees under the table? Does your church do this? They should give it a try if you really believe Hovind is innocent.

    Is it OK for Hovind to give “evidence” for the truthfulness of the Bible that even other young-Earth creationists admit are simply wrong? If someone came to your church with an axe from Wal-Mart and said that it was archeological proof of Elisha recovering the borrowed axehead (2 Kings 6), would it be wrong for your pastor to stand up and say that no one should listen to the man? That is all I am doing with Hovind. It is not “unChristian” to point out error, and I am seeking to be as gracious as I can.

    I hope you are right, that I will never have a ministry anything like Hovind’s (bad apologetics, illegal finances, conspiracy theories). I am content to work in a small circle of people; I don’t need a nationwide audience like Hovind has attracted. But I am reaching people with the gospel of Jesus Christ who would never listen to Hovind, and for that I am thankful.

    I’m not angry. I am saddened.

    Comment by geochristian | June 2, 2009

  27. Hi Prem

    Based on your third comment your response to Prem i would like to know what you mean by:

    the foolishness of bad arguments in defense of Christianity, such as much of what Hovind teaches through his “creation ministry.”

    First of all this sounds like you judging him? Do you call yourself a Christian?

    Secondly how can you make an allegation like that without substantiating it? Let us hear which of the teachings you find foolish so we can identify with your accusation.

    Comment by Thyran | June 16, 2009

  28. Thyran:

    Thanks for your comment.

    You said, “First of all this sounds like you judging him? Do you call yourself a Christian?”

    Aren’t you doing the same thing to me? Was Paul in error when he rebuked Peter in Galatians 2? Is a pastor in error for pointing out the errors of the health and wealth preachers on television? I’m not saying Hovind is not a Christian, but I am saying that he is wrong on almost everything he says when it comes to the relationship between science and the Scriptures.

    So yes, I am calling myself a Christian. By God’s grace I have come to believe that Jesus Christ was fully God and fully human, was born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, was crucified as the propitiation and substitute on my behalf (necessary because of my many sins) and that he rose again on the third day. Praise God for what he has done on my behalf!

    As for the scientific errors of Hovind, read comment #18 for an example based on ocean chemistry. Either Hovind just doesn’t understand the science, or he chooses to ignore it. Here are some other things that Hovind is wrong about:

    –The sun is shrinking so the Earth must be young. Hovind knows better than astrophysicists, and believes that the sun’s energy comes from gravitational contraction rather than nuclear fusion.

    –The thickness of moon dust proves that the moon (and therefore Earth) is young. Some studies in the 1950s indicated that fine dust in space should have left a layer of dust on the moon several meters thick. The true thickness of dust on the moon turns out to be about 1 cm. Proof that the moon is young? No, because the 1950s studies grossly overestimated the amount of dust floating around in the solar system. That hasn’t stopped Hovind, and many other young-Earth creationists, from using these sorts of arguments (Answers in Genesis admits that the moon dust argument is wrong).

    –Human footprints and dinosaur footprints together prove that humans and dinosaurs lived together. No. There are no human footprints, fossils, or artifacts in Mesozoic (dinosaur) age sediments. None. And things like dinosaur footprints, intact dinosaur nests, and fossilized dinosaur poop shouldn’t even exist if the sedimentary rocks were deposited in Noah’s flood as Hovind and other young-Earth creationists advocate. I’ve written about this elsewhere: http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/dinosaur-footprints-part-3/

    I’m certainly not saying that the Bible is wrong, just that young-Earth creationists are wrong, and that Hovind is wrong even by other young-Earth creationists’ standards. I’ll write a post really soon about a number of things that young-Earth creationists read into the Scriptures that just simply are not there.

    To summarize again: Hovind is wrong about just about everything he says when it comes to geology. I don’t know if he has the classroom, field, or laboratory experience to understand why he is wrong. He can talk fast in his DVDs, but that doesn’t make him right. He can throw in some Bible verses, but that doesn’t make him right either. Some people come to faith in Christ through all of this (and again I rejoice in this), but others are needlessly driven away.

    With respect,
    Kevin N

    Comment by geochristian | June 16, 2009

  29. I had somehow missed hearing about Hovind until 2002. (I was pretty purely AiG oriented.) A co-worker was excited about how 9/11 was a US government action, and he sent me a radio recording of Hovind’s. Hovind thinks the 9/11 events, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the World Trade Center attacks were all US-committed attacks. He had some other conspiracy theories too, but I don’t remember what they were. Those big three were the ones that stuck in my mind.

    That’s where I first remember Hovind’s name. I realize those don’t have to do with Creation, but anyone who mixes fantasy into Scripture like that needs to be called on it.

    Since then, I viewed one of his videos called the Hovind Theory where he talks about a giant comet breaking up and being responsible for our polar ice caps, for the flood, for planetary rings, for the impact marks on the moon, and all sorts of other stuff. The video was loaned from someone else, but I can probably get it again if needed.

    I’m not a geologist like GeoChristian, but I do know my astronomy. If you want, I can give you lots of reasons why those aspects of his theories are nonsense.

    Comment by WebMonk | June 16, 2009

  30. WebMonk:

    Thanks for your contributions to the discussion. I have only briefly alluded to Hovind’s conspiracy theories, but his ideas include:
    –The US government suppresses cures for cancer.
    –HIV/AIDs and many other diseases are part of a global “big money” conspiracy to take over the world.
    –The World Trade Center/Oklahoma City bombings were done by the US government, as WebMonk mentioned.
    –The US tax code is part of a communist plot to take over America.

    Hovind has renounced his US citizenship.

    And Christians spend millions of dollars on his books and DVDs! Oh my.

    Comment by geochristian | June 16, 2009

  31. Hi

    Thanks all I see here are your own conspiracy theories none of which have supporting reference links

    And still we haven’t established one reason with evidence why you believe his theories are incorrect.

    I’ve watched all his seminars over 15 hours of them and unfortunately do not concur with the allegations you have made against him.

    By the way churches and npo’s don’t have to and never have had to pay tax in fact there is no law to state that he must pay tax? Perhaps hovind was right maybe control over the world is happening I see it so clearly here it seems some people have allowed their minds to be controlled too

    Anyway when you have some actual evidence I would be glad to see it until then…

    Comment by Thyran | June 16, 2009

  32. And so what if Christians have brought his DVD’s you haven’t proved any of his DVD’s you havent proved his theories wrong so what is your point?

    Do you also complain about the billions governments spends on war? No you hate dr hovind because he opposed the lies you were taught and now you will say anything to discredit him no matter whether I is true or not to make yourself feel better about yourself :)

    I call it ignorance

    Comment by Thyran | June 16, 2009

  33. Thyran:

    Thanks again for your comment.

    I worked for a Christian organization for six years, and I had to file income taxes and pay FICA. The organization did not pay me with cash under the table and then say, “It’s all God’s money.” This is all in accord with US laws. The fact that some people don’t like those laws does not exempt them from paying them (Matt 22:15-21, Romans 13:6-7, both in the context of the evil Roman Empire). If you think Hovind is innocent, then your church needs to start paying its employees (pastor, secretary, janitor, etc.) with cash under the table.

    If you accept Hovind’s arguments and cannot follow my argument in comment #18 regarding chemical element concentrations in seawater, then I’m not sure what else I can say. The simple fact is that if you use Hovind’s reasoning, then we can prove that the ocean is no more than 100 years old.

    Same with the Hovind moon dust argument. It is based on 1950s data that was derived before we even sent any probes into space to actually measure interplanetary space dust! I guess the true concentration of dust in space doesn’t matter.

    Comment by geochristian | June 16, 2009

  34. Thyran:

    I do not hate Kent Hovind. He is my brother in Christ. Even if he were not my brother in Christ, I would love him.

    I do not rejoice that he is in prison. But that is his own doing.

    I don’t think I have misrepresented anything that Mr. Hovind has said. I do think his teachings are a serious obstacle for evangelism of scientists. Not because the Bible is wrong, but because Hovind is wrong.

    Comment by geochristian | June 16, 2009

  35. the comment about hating dr hovind as for the person who responded on your behalf to my original post obviously!

    You hadn’t even said anything so regarding my post so why assume it was directed at you?

    Comment by Thyran | June 16, 2009

  36. Please copy and past the law where it states the church is required to pay taxes I would like to see it

    And I know the story about paying taxes in the bible it was used to trick Christ did Christ pay taxes? LOL

    What about the magnetic force of the earth that is depreciating if we go back to 20 000 years the earth would melt under the pressure? :) anyway I’ll get back to you on your moon dust argument very shortly :)

    Comment by Thyran | June 16, 2009

  37. I think the only person who is wrong here is you and your cult

    Comment by Thyran | June 16, 2009

  38. Thyran:

    Churches do not have to pay taxes, but their employees do. Hovind was paying his employees under the table. My understanding is that he also tried to say that his theme park is a church, which it clearly isn’t.

    So was Paul (Romans 13) trying to trick the believers into paying taxes to the Romans?

    I’ll put the “decaying magnetic field” argument in with the sea salt and moon dust arguments. There is clear geologic evidence that Earth’s magnetic field varies in intensity from time to time. There is even clear evidence that it flip-flops from time to time, so that the north magnetic pole switches places with the south magnetic pole.

    To say that Earth’s decaying magnetic field proves a young Earth is like saying that one can prove that the Earth is only a few days old by measuring temperatures at sunset. If I make the following temperature measurements:
    7PM == 75 F
    8PM == 70 F (sunset)
    9PM == 65 F
    and then extrapolate backwards in time, I can determine that the temperature 100 hours ago must have been 570 F. Nothing could survive such heat, so Earth is obviously much younger than 100 hours.

    Of course, you see the silliness of my sunset extrapolation. But Hovind does exactly the same thing when he talks about Earth’s magnetic field. He ignores the clear evidence from the Earth’s crust that the magnetic field varies cyclically. Many other young-Earth creationists have abandoned this argument, but not Hovind.

    Can’t you see that when Christians use these kinds of arguments in defense of God’s word, that they are actually doing anti-apologetics rather than making a case for the truthfulness of Scriptures? A scientist who looks at this says, “if I have to believe what Hovind teaches, I cannot believe that Christianity is true.”

    This is a tragedy.

    Comment by geochristian | June 16, 2009

  39. Thyran:

    Do you believe that the oceans are only 100 years old?

    Do you believe that the concentration of interplanetary dust is much higher than what we measure it to be, because Hovind says so?

    Does your church pay its employees with cash under the table?

    Comment by geochristian | June 16, 2009

  40. Thyran, I’m missing your point. I listened to Hovind talk about how the US engineered those attacks. Those sorts of views are called conspiracy theories. Same sort of thing with his views of not being required to pay income taxes. Volume 26 of the laws passed by Congress (they’ve passed lots of laws), has the laws about who has to pay taxes. The laws are all there.

    Since you want to deal with his specific claims, the massive ice comet crashing into earth is laughable nonsense.

    First, he claimed it crashed on the poles, both poles. A big ball of ice can’t break apart like that if it were to hit the earth. By the time it starts hitting the earth’s atmosphere, it wouldn’t have enough time to split apart enough to hit opposite sides of the earth. If the comet fragments were coming from such and angle that it hit one of the poles, then it couldn’t possibly hit the other pole too, on the direct opposite side of the earth.

    Second, he says the craters of the moon were made by the same comet’s pieces. If ice were to hit the moon to create the craters, we would have lots and lots of ice scattered all over the moon, but there isn’t any significant amount. If a big bunch of ice hit the moon just over 4000 years ago, there would still be lots of ice scattered all over the moon. There is not anywhere near that much water. Also, the comet would have needed to somehow hit the moon all around, not just on one side.

    Third, he claimed that planetary rings were made by the remnants of the comet. The first problem with that is the comet would have had to be made out of all sorts of different types of dirty ice because the various planetary rings have different types of ice. Another problem is that you’d need a comet as big as, if not bigger than, the moon to supply enough ice to make all the rings and still have enough mass to pound the moon enough to make all those craters and hit the earth hard enough to crack the crust. Not only that, but if all those impacts happened on the moon all in the same year, the moon would have been blasted to smithereens.

    Fourth (and I could go on), the comet couldn’t possibly have done all of that. It can’t make rings around Uranus, Saturn, Neptune, and Jupiter, and hit the earth and moon. It couldn’t possible be in all those different places, even if it were broken up. Even when a comet is broken up, it is still flying along in the same direction, and to make all those rings, hit the moon all over (not just on one side), and nail the earth on BOTH poles at the same time, it would have to be flying in a dozen completely different directions all at the same time in different areas of the solar system.

    Hovind is wildly, bizarrely, stupidly wrong about his entire comet theory. I just barely scratched the surface about the reasons Hovind is wrong on that.

    Comment by WebMonk | June 16, 2009

  41. Thyran:

    I mentioned one tragedy: that bad apologetics (e.g. Hovind) from the church could drive scientists, and others, away from Christ.

    The other tragedy is when Christians believe that the trustworthiness of the Bible is demonstrated by the contents of Dr. Mr. Dino DVDs. Some of these people (often our youth) will some day see that Hovind’s arguments are full of holes. The tragedy is that they often throw out their Christianity along with their Dr. Dino DVDs.

    Comment by geochristian | June 16, 2009

  42. Whoa, I posted too slowly. I was still back to replying to Thyran’s #32 post asking about proving Hovind’s theories wrong.

    Comment by WebMonk | June 16, 2009

  43. Hi Webmonk

    Out of all your four points all you have listed is the same point over and over again?

    Secondly i have watched his DVD’s please explain which one it is that has this comet theory in as i have not seen it in any of his DVD’s i think you mistaken or the story has evolved into this ridiculous theory of yours…

    Anyway after all of this you still havent come with solid eveidence as to why you believe Hovind is wrong?

    still waiting and its getting quite amusing

    try watching the dvd’s instead of making an opinion about something you have never seen

    Comment by Thyran | June 17, 2009

  44. geochristian

    Your comparison regarding the temperatures of earth is rather pathetic the earth cools down and heats up never has it ever been 570 F therefore your science in your argument is flawed.

    Now for the magnetic theory which you so quickly passed off as nonsense without even taking time to research the subject has far more science to the theory than your poor attempt at trying to make me bleieve the earth is 100 hours old.

    Watch this clip and tell me what it is that you cannot understand about the magnetic force the fact is over time it has depreciated it may have fluctuated but the fact is it has depreciated over time

    forget about that then

    The moon revolves around the sun every year it moves slightly further away could this be because of the depreciating magentic field hmmm just a thought but hey move back 10 000 years and whoa the moon is now orbiting inside the earth! lol

    Secondly how do you explain the finding of a world war 2 plane in ice layers that are supposed to be billions of years old?

    Or trees that have been fossilised in rock layers that are also supposed to be millions of years old?

    Or the carbon dating of live penguins that came out 14 000 years old? hmmm

    There is far more science in the world to prove that the earth is not millions of years old than there is to prove that there is.

    Regarding the tax law i indicatedthat churches dont have to pay tax and you indicated that you had to now when i ask you to quote the law all of a sudden you dont have too? But you said you had been workign for a “christian organisation” and file for tax? Why? isnt it God’s money why then do you hand it over to man? doenst sound very much like a Christian organisation to me!

    Secondly you now indicate that he cant pay his employess but thats just the point are they employees do they fit into the tax bracket and secondly where is there a law to state that the individual has to pay tax in America obviouly you have been conned by the IRS

    The corporate sector has to pay taxes… Anybody paying taxes there is really just funding the war on America’s supposed terrosism problem maybe America are their own terriosits

    What about the time line in your bible that is in accordance with Hovind’s theories?

    Do you also disregard the Bible to suit your own theories sure seems like it

    Where did Jesus pay tax? you havent answered that question yet you use it in your arguments?

    The below scripture you used to prove that we had to pay taxes? I fully agree with the scripture but please show me where it says youi have to pay taxes to the goverment when they are not due? It seem you will use scripture to proclaim your own theories what a tragedy

    Romans 13
    Submit to Government
    1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

    I dont believe in God because i watched Dr Hovind’s DVD’s he states himself that the Bible is a book writted in most languages if you want to understand it dont believe what someone tells you about it read it for yourself

    I think you and your website has pushed far more people form the truth and God than Dr Hovind, and secondly i think he has saved and brought more people to Christ than you ever have and will.

    If you believed in God and read the Bible you wouldnt even have all this slanderous name shaming crap

    You are far worse than Hovind!

    Comment by Thyran | June 17, 2009

  45. Thyran, I watched Hovind talk at length about this giant comet and how it triggered the Flood, made the moon’s craters, and the rings around the planets. It was on a VHS tape, and all I remember of the title was something about “The Hovind Theory”. I’m not making this up.

    I’m not sure what you are talking about when you say I’m saying the same thing over and over again. I talked about how it couldn’t hit both poles at the same time, how it couldn’t have made all the craters on the moon, how it couldn’t have made the rings around the planets, and how it certainly couldn’t have done all of those things at the same time. Those are all different problems with his theory.

    Hovind is really obviously wrong on that whole theory. You asked for an instance where Hovind is wrong, and I gave one.

    I’ll just pick out a couple of other points you brought up:

    “The moon revolves around the sun every year it moves slightly further away could this be because of the depreciating magentic field hmmm just a thought but hey move back 10 000 years and whoa the moon is now orbiting inside the earth!”

    First, the moon does not revolve around the sun, it revolves around the earth. Second, it doesn’t move further away because of magnetic fields, but because of the friction of the earth’s ocean tides. Third, if its current rate of recession (moving away) were carried back, it would be touching the earth 1.4 Billion years ago (that’s according to Answers in Genesis, not me), not 10,000 years ago. I have no idea where you got that 10,000 number. And even the 1.4 Billion years that Answers in Genesis suggests isn’t correct because the moon moved away from earth at a much slower rate in the past because when all the continents were together before they broke apart, the tidal friction was MUCH lower, and so the moon would have moved away MUCH more slowly.

    Next:
    “Or the carbon dating of live penguins that came out 14 000 years old? hmmm”
    That is a urban legend. Made up. If you know of someplace that talks about it happening, let me know. (and to let you know ahead of time, there is no such thing as the “Science Encyclopedia Vol 224″, that’s part of the made up story.)

    Next:
    “Where did Jesus pay tax? you havent answered that question yet you use it in your arguments?”
    Matthew 17. He got the money from a fish, but he paid the tax for himself and for Peter. Then in Romans 13, Paul tells us to pay taxes to whom they are due. Obviously you think we don’t owe taxes to the US government, but the US Congress has passed taxing laws. The tax laws are in volume 26 of the United States Code; that’s the 26th volume of the laws passed by the Congress. The Congress has passed laws saying we need to pay taxes, so we are “due” to pay taxes just like Paul said we should.

    Comment by WebMonk | June 17, 2009

  46. Hi Dan

    My sincere apologies, i did mean the earth and not the sun… thanks for clearing that up, but i actually knew that already and it was a mistake on my behalf well done for taking the time to point that out :)

    Regarding the moon moving further away from the earth you use the continents all being sperated for your reasoning that the moon is now moving at a slower rate away from the earth… Do you honestly believe the continents are seperated or that they were together lol

    what a joke so all the continets are floating islands :) back to Dr Hovinds theory lies in the text books

    the continents are connected under the sea and they have been connected since the beginning of time…

    Your point about Answers in Genisis states why this isnt correct says nothing about the continents moving fruther away dont you see now that you are doing exactly what you accusing Hovind of?

    The article in Answers in Genisis is found here

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0811.asp

    go read it before you plagorise it!

    Matthew 17
    27 Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money;[h] take that and give it to them for Me and you.”

    great story do you see Jesus didnt pay tax because he obided to the law? But he paid it by performing a miracle and also so as not to offend them :)

    And you us ethis argument to indicate that one should pay taxes even if they are a church? let me ask you what did Jesus do when they turned his temple into a market place?

    The whole point about the tax issue is you think you know the answers to all of it but no where have you stated where it is the law that churches must pay tax?

    Secondly you say he was paying his employees under the table was he did you see him do that? Or was this what the IRS made it out to be? Do you know the exact details of his case where you there when he was tried and tested and found guilty…

    The fact is that the IRS have put many people in prisons for tax evasions when in fact there is no law stating that they had too… Many people have fought their convictions and have won! I suggest you watch America Freedom to Fascism

    And since that movie came out (America Freedom to Fascism) i can imagine congress would have pushed for a law change but are Congress the law? :)

    Anyway you use your speculations to disregard everything Hovind has said but im sorry im not going to take your word for it, show me where Hovind says this things that you proclaiming otherwise i cant believe you.

    I can sit here and tell you that the earth is only a couple of a thousand years old and you wont just believe me i would have to give you proof where is your proof about all these so called allegations besides on a phantom tape that you watched some years back? Im sorry but i cant take the word of someone who is so readily able to slander another persons name.

    Then i was also wandering so what if Hovind has opinions of what the worlds conspiracies theories are dont we all have them such as your theory that the continents are floating away from each other does that make you wrong about everything? :) Did Hovind pass off his theories as the truth and did he saw it was irrefutable my gosh is the man not entitled to his opinion and freedom of speech? that is the law but here you are condemning him for having a brain :)

    In all the DVD’s that i have watched of Hovind i have never seen him say the earth is only 6000 years old because of this one piece of scientifical eveidence that is not what he ever says what he does it he takes the points that evolutionists use to back their theories about how old the earth is and uses the same science they use to prove their theories wrong. Is that a crime and so what if he may have used one wrong method to prove them wrong? Are you saying you dont believe that he believed it was correct and what about the 1000’s of other reasons he gives besides his one wrong theory that proves these evoltuionists worng? Typical “christians” of the world today the most judgemental people i have ever met!

    1 Corinthians 1:21-31 (New International Version)

    21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

    1 Corinthians 1:21-31 (New International Version)
    26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”[a]

    Comment by Thyran | June 17, 2009

  47. Thyran:

    Thanks again for your comments.

    Obviously, I’m not trying to use sunsets to demonstrate that the Earth is less than 100 years old. My point was to show that cyclical events cannot be used to determine how old the Earth is. You cannot use sunsets to determine the age of the Earth, and you cannot use Earth’s fluctuating magnetic field. I have been part of a multi-disciplinary team that has used the Earth’s magnetic field for study of ancient sediments, so I know a fair amount of the science behind all of this.

    I don’t have time to watch a one-hour youtube video. If you can direct me to what part of the video discusses the Earth’s varying magnetic field, I would be happy to look at it and get back to you.

    I think WebMonk did a good job with the “Hovind Theory” and the tidal recession of the moon, so I’ll leave those alone for now.

    In the center of Greenland the climate is dry and ice accumulates rather slowly. Towards the edges of Greenland, where the “Lost Squadron” of WWII airplanes is found, snowfall is much greater and ice accumulates much more rapidly. Your statement that the planes are buried in ice that is supposed to be billions of years old is simply wrong.

    I have no problem with fossilized trees in rocks that are millions of years old. Once the wood has been replaced by minerals, the tree is highly resistant to weathering and erosion.

    You stated that Hovind has brought many to Christ, and I rejoice in this, even if he is wrong about science. But to use bad arguments in defense of the inerrant word of God will backfire. The number of people who reject Christ because they falsely think they would have to become an ignoramus is in the millions. People will reject Christ because of their hard hearts, but the magnetic field/moon dust/lunar recession arguments put additional stumbling blocks in their way. Let them reject Christ because of the “foolishness of the gospel,” but not because of the foolishness of bad arguments by Christians.

    Regarding taxes: you and Hovind are simply being disobedient to the clear teachings of Scripture. If Paul and Jesus told us to pay taxes to the evil Roman Empire, then it is silly for us to think that we should be exempt from paying taxes to the US government, even if we were to think it is evil too.

    Comment by geochristian | June 17, 2009

  48. Thyran:

    The issue with Hovind wasn’t whether or not churches have to pay taxes, so you might as well stop asking.

    The issues were:
    –Is Hovind’s Dinosaur Adventure Land a church? No. Christian bookstores are not churches either, and my understanding is that they pay taxes just like any other business.
    –Do Hovind’s employees have to pay taxes? The legal answer is that they do. Hovind payed them with cash under the table to avoid paying taxes.

    Answer this question: Does your church pay its employees with cash under the table?

    This is the last time I’ll say anything about taxes. Hovind is quite simply wrong, and is in federal prison not because of his preaching or his creationism, but because of tax fraud. If any other business or church ran their finances in the same way, whoever ran them would end up in prison as well.

    Comment by geochristian | June 17, 2009

  49. Thyran:

    Thanks for bringing the 1 Cor 1 passage. As I said, people will reject the gospel because they perceive its message to be foolishness. We can do nothing about that. Our job is to present the Lord Jesus Christ before them as savior.

    The problem is that God doesn’t then command us to use foolish arguments in defense of the Bible. When we use Hovind-style arguments as apologetics, people are driven away by our foolishness, not by the foolishness of God.

    Comment by geochristian | June 17, 2009

  50. Thyran:

    In regards to moving continents:

    –The continents are still moving at a few centimeters per year. This is measurable.
    –The rocks beneath the continents, being under great pressure, behave as a moldable plastic rather than a brittle solid, so they can flow. There are no physical reasons why the continents cannot move.
    –Most young-Earth creationist organizations do not deny that plate tectonics (continental drift) occurs.

    Comment by geochristian | June 17, 2009

  51. LOL you think webmonk covered the moon aspect well did you :) To be honest i have never heard anythng more ridiculous in my life

    You dont have time to watch an hour video but you have all the time in the world to slander Hovind’s name :) ignorance is bliss

    you obviously have a personal vendetta agains Hovind and his beliefs do you as a Chritian believe the world is millions of years old?

    I used that corinthians chapter not so you can manipulate it into your own agenda but to show you that you are foolish in your preaching too what do you do use it to show how foolish Hovind is i think you missed the point of the scriputre perhaps you should meditate on it for a while

    so let me get this straight you dont like Hovind because of his red moon dust theory which i have never heard after watchign his DVD’s but we are left to assume by your statment that it exists secondly because he didnt pay his taxes :) well then 95 % of America belongs in jail too not just Hovind

    Regarding his parks are they profitable orginsations are the npo’s do you know? no but you will pass judgement

    man o man i have never seen someone so far from God than you

    Im done here not once have you bothered to address my points you use gossip printed on the net to make a basis of your judgement instead of presenting the truth!

    Ill pray for you and your congregation you guys need it

    Comment by Thyran | June 17, 2009

  52. continents moving lol what a flippin joke so they moved 1000’s of miles away from each other over billions of years

    Read your Bible it says differently but then again i think we reading different Bibles :)

    Comment by Thyran | June 17, 2009

  53. Thyran:

    You said: Read your Bible it says differently but then again i think we reading different Bibles. Does the Bible teach that the continents cannot move? Perhaps you and I really do have different Bibles.

    Comment by geochristian | June 17, 2009

  54. Thyran:

    Yes, I have no problem with the idea of an Earth that is billions of years old. I’m in good company: Great defenders of the inerrancy of Scriptures like Charles Spurgeon and Francis Schaeffer also accepted an old Earth. I’ll gladly stand with them.

    Comment by geochristian | June 17, 2009

  55. Thyran, Answers in Genesis itself affirms that the continents were all joined together at one point. They say that it was a couple hundred years after the Flood that the continents started to separate from each other.

    Answers in Genesis also fully backs up what I said about the moon and earth moving apart and WHY they are moving apart – the friction of the tides as the tides move past the continents.

    What is a “red moon dust” theory? Hovind claims that there should be tons of moon dust on the moon after billions of years, and because there isn’t then it must only be thousands of years old. He is using a very old estimate that was very wrong about how much dust there is in space. Answers in Genesis agrees on this, that Hovind is wrong.

    You keep repeating that there aren’t laws requiring taxes, but I’ve told you where they are – volume 26 of the laws Congress has passed.

    Hovind admits that he paid his employees in cash; that was part of his defense in the case! He claimed that they were servants of the Lord, and not his employees, and that he wasn’t paying them as employees, but just with cash.

    What points have we not addressed about Hovind’s incorrect scientific claims? Moon Dust, check. Moon receding, check. Ice comet hitting earth, check. Magnetic field, check. Ice accumulation, check. Radiocarbon dated penguins, check. Laws about taxes, check. Hovind paying people under the table, check.

    All this stuff is in his materials, either books, DVDs, his old VHS materials, or stuff you’ve brought up yourself. This isn’t stuff we’re getting off rumors off the Internet. What am I missing that I (or geochristian) hasn’t addressed in your points?

    Comment by WebMonk | June 17, 2009

  56. So you dont believe the Bible when it says the earth was created in 6 days?

    Comment by Thyran | June 18, 2009

  57. Thyran, since you aren’t really responding in any sort of meaningful way to what I say about science and Hovind’s errors, I think this is my last post.

    Suffice it to say, that reading Genesis 1 to mean 24-hour days is not a faithful reading of what Moses and the Holy Spirit intended to convey. Is it understandable that people interpret it that way? Sure. Is it a good way to interpret it? No.

    Comment by WebMonk | June 18, 2009

  58. Hi Webmonk

    I stopped with the whole Dr Hovind story because you werent responding to any of my point either…

    this ont be my last post im willing to get to the bottom of this once and for all sorry if your growing weary or impatient :)

    Alright so you say that the Bible’s interpretation that the earth was created in 6 days actually means that the earth was created in 4 billion years?

    interesting

    The only thing i can find scripturally to back your claims is that God said Moses lived just short of a day and he was 940 or something at the time of his passing therefore perhaps God’s day is like 1000 human years but then this just backs Hovind’s theory that the earth is a young earth.

    Nothing back your theory that the earth is billion of years old please use scripture to show me where it does if you feel it does.

    I know the prophet Crefflar A Dollar also uses this concept that a God year is 1000 years… But im sure you will find something to discredit his record of service so as to prove him wrong instead of listening to the facts like we did with Hovind…

    Lets see what scriptures you have to prove your theory that the earth is billions of years old and if there is no scripture to prove that there is why dont you believe the scriptures that are there and are clear that the earth was created in 6 days?

    Do you also believe we were apes?

    Comment by Thyran | June 18, 2009

  59. You were asking about the science showing where Hovind was wrong. We demonstrated a dozen different ways he was wrong, not just by our own knowledge, but also in ways AiG agrees.

    But then you never bother to reply, and suddenly jump topic to a very different area. This conversation isn’t worth continuing with that sort of behavior.

    Comment by WebMonk | June 18, 2009

  60. After reading this entire thread and having only tonight sadly discovered that Brother Hovind, and I suppose his wife, are in jail for tax evasion, I would like to make these comments.

    -The fact that brother Hovind is in jail does interject a large distraction when referencing his work against evolution. While he makes many insightful and helpful observations about the religion of evolution it is baffling that he did not understand some clear teachings in the Scriptures about obeying the law and clear teaching against lawlessness.

    -There is precedent and clarity concerning disobeying the State when it is in clear violation of the decrees and commandments of God. The book of Daniel is a good illustration. Paying of taxes would not qualify in this context.

    -It should be obvious to any clear thinking lover of the truth that theories should be stated as such and not presented as fact no matter what the topic. If a presenter is not able to distinguish the difference, then this should be exposed. If a presenter knows the difference and decides to misrepresent the theory as unquestionable fact then his credibility is seriously undermined.

    -The Bible can be defended as true in many ways with overwhelming evidence to place a skeptic in the position of acceptance or choosing denial as a life style.(which they do)

    -The dishonesty of Evolution presented as fact is obvious. The diabolical attack on God having created the universe is primal, unrelenting, and cunning.

    -There is no justification for presenting theory as fact when discounting the religion of evolution. Integrity is important especially if you claim to represent God. After all, we love truth, don’t we?

    -The biggest offense that many find with evolution is that it is presented as fact when it is unprovable with no allowance for creation as an alternative. The truth is that the god/spirit of this world hates God and His truth and is intolerant of any evidence that glorifies God or proves His existence. True believers know this. The distinction can be made as a conflict between those who love truth and those who love lies that facilitate their fantasies.

    -Sir Arthur Keith said the truth didn’t he? He said evolution was unprovable but it served it’s purpose to provide an alternative to believing in the Christian God. This is a tip off that rational thought is not at the heart of evolution, isn’t it?

    – Let integrity underpin the cause of all who represent Christ. Let the objective truth of Gods Word be revealed and declared from the highest geological column.

    -“We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places”.

    -God Almighty uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. He also uses the Truth to set men free. I don’t believe it is acceptable to put both in a blender and make a smoothie so we can appear to be profound.

    -The scientific community has to choose everyday when they do research and experimentation as to what end does their effort ally. May they all choose to give glory to God for the great things He has done.

    Comment by David Patton | June 25, 2009

  61. This last comment by Mr. Patton is among the worthiest to have appeared in this thread. I am re-interested in checking in from time to time.

    I speculated briefly before on Hovind’s seemingly inexplicable failure regarding his taxes and the IRS. Let me speculate further, by turning the whole argument offered by geochristian, 180 degrees about.

    Even the most undeniably inspired, and wholly uncontroversial of evangelists, confess to intense, diabolical, spiritual attacks that can seem to intensify with the effectiveness of their ministries. Here they find it absolutely critical to have indeed “put on the full armor of God”, and they even ask for our prayers – for such is the intensity of spiritual warfare on the front lines.

    The enemy is nothing if not clever, and seemingly allocates limited resources according to his well-known priorities. So Hovind was found vulnerable, but perhaps not because his message is not insired, but because he was becoming far too effective to be ignored any longer.

    Who knows, but its clear that some very good Christians, having receved the Holy Spirit and a God-given commission, can still become victims of pride, imagining that they are somehow invulnerable as long as they are carrying out their commission. There is scripture to this effect but it would be inapplicable if in the process of following God’s will in one area, you have forgotten his clear commandments in another. “Most” of God’s armor may work most of the time, but you better have donned it all if you want to do battle on the front lines.

    In any and all possible cases, the Bible clearly warns against excessive judgementalism leading to complete condemnation of others, and that we should instead be ready and even anxious to forgive – especially our fellow Christians. Thus anyone who presume’s to demolish Hovind’s teachings based on his single legal failing, is deeply engaged in serious sin and moral failure themselves.

    The proof of the matter will be revealed when Hovind emerges from exile. I expect him to be completely repentent and to fully admit his error. The good news is that this whole affair need not seriously damage his ministry – for everybody hates the IRS – a gang of bullies often under the legal microscope themselves. Unlike the case of say, Jimmy Swaggart, forgiveness will therefore be abundantly available when Hovind asks for it.

    Furthermore, I suspect Hovind will find that prison can be quite a gift when used to advantage (been there done that). For where else can one recline, and with so little interference, reflect, study, learn and grow, while the government pays the rent?

    I predict Hovind will emerge reprentent, refreshed, loaded with new insights, a large following of reformed and Bible believing ex-cons – and hopefully well in advance of his unduly harsh sentence of 10 years.

    Comment by Gary Navarre | June 26, 2009

  62. Gary:

    I hope you are correct and that Mr. Hovind will repent while in prison. As I said earlier, I do not rejoice in his imprisonment or his legal difficulties.

    Kevin N

    Comment by geochristian | June 26, 2009

  63. Finally some people who actually have some sense!

    Gary Navarre and David Patton i think you both have hit the nail on the head!

    As for Hovind i believe he has made the most of his time in Jail and has converted and started a ministry in the prison.

    Praise the Lord that he has used his time wisely which is something i cannot say for this site!

    Comment by Thyran | June 27, 2009

  64. Hovind converted? To what? From what?

    Comment by WebMonk | June 29, 2009

  65. from budhism to satanism… :)

    the obvious answer is from being lost to believing in Jesus Christ isnt it?

    I think Hovind has been taught a well needed lesson in being humble something which i believe he lacked in his seminars…

    I bet he wont be avoiding his taxes anytime soon and i bet he will make a huge come back…

    For we all are sinners and fall short of the Glory of God :)

    Anyway until such time Science proves the Bible wrong I will believe in a 6 day creation any other belief is not from God…

    Comment by Thyran | June 29, 2009

  66. Thyran (#63, 65) implies that Hovind has converted from “being lost to believing in Jesus Christ.” If I had said Hovind wasn’t even a Christian, people would jump all over me. I haven’t looked at his statements on the gospel closely, but I have seen no evidence that Hovind was not a Christian before he went to prison. Messed up like the rest of us, yes.

    Comment by geochristian | June 29, 2009

  67. Geo Chrsitian you have misunderstood

    He has converted people in prison into believing in Jesus

    Never meant him he has always made it clear that he believes in the Bible but i can see why you misunderstood it was my poor gramma

    nevertheless now you know what i meant

    Comment by Thyran | June 29, 2009

  68. Thanks for the clarification.

    Comment by geochristian | June 29, 2009

  69. Sorry Thyran, I misunderstood too. I do stuff like that too. You’re supposed to read my mind to see what I REALLY meant to say!

    Comment by WebMonk | June 29, 2009

  70. Radiocarbon dating using the (relatively) recently developed Accelerator Mass Spectrometer (AMS) is not cooperating with the results of the older carbon dating procedure. I used it once and it reset the age of a certain pottery type in Minnesota to a substantially younger age, creating quite a stir among professionals there.

    Now I read that 11 “Eleven human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the Western hemisphere, have recently been dated by this new accelerator mass spectrometer technique… at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! If more of the claimed evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain carbon-14, a major scientific revolution will occur and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete.” (Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 95)

    Also, scientists recently used the AMS method on diamonds crushed and processed for that purpose. Although diamonds are formed of pure crystallized carbon and have generally been assumed to be hundreds of millions of years old, the AMS method found plenty of carbon 14 still merrily decaying away. The Carbon 14 isotope is supposed to have a half-life of only 5,700 years. Oops.

    The attack is also moving ahead on other radioisotope dating methods. Specifically on what the critics are saying is the poorly founded assumption that the rates of atomic decay measured in Pottassium Argon, Strontium-Rubidium, and Lead-Lead dating, etc., have always been what they are today. Strange things happening.

    I wonder if I might prevail upon geochristian (et al) to pick up a copy of the above-named book. Its got it all in an attractive hard-bound volume of 400+ pages. By “all” I mean everything Hovind’s lectures are based on and a great deal more dealing with evidence of a young earth. Ordering it yourselves will prove easier than having me feed you an incredible compilation of young earth data one problem (for you) at a time. And everyone else who is interested – do get yourself a copy. I ordered it from Amazon.com.

    Comment by Gary Navarre | June 30, 2009

  71. :) I wander when the creators of this site discover that Hovind was right with his theory of a young earth will the orghanisers of this site restore the damage they have done to Hovind’s name…

    Comment by Thyran | June 30, 2009

  72. Gary:

    I do not have a copy of Walter Brown’s book, but am familiar with his “hydroplate theory.” Brown is considered to be out of the mainstream by more respectable young-Earth creationists, just like Hovind is, and for good reasons. His hydroplate theory is just a big arm waving “it seems to me” kind of theory, not something based on careful field and laboratory work. When it comes to clear scientific thinking, I don’t trust Walter Brown any more than I trust Kent Hovind.

    Regarding carbon-14 dating:
    –Using mass spectrometry for counting carbon-14 dating has allowed for the counting of individual atoms, which has pushed the sensitivity of C-14 dating back to about 60,000 years. Many, many dates determined by this method go back tens of thousands of years, not to young dates.
    –That traces of carbon-14 should exist in diamond or coal dating back tens or hundreds of millions of years doesn’t surprise me. We couldn’t detect these tiny amounts of C-14 with the older counters, but they are readily detectable with mass spectrometers. C-14 can form in diamonds, and in other crustal rocks, by nuclear reactions occurring within the diamonds themselves. Neutrons produced by spontaneous fission of U-238 in adjoining minerals will react with other isotopes (such as C-13) to produce C-14 in diamond on an on-going basis. This might not explain all C-14 in diamonds, but it can explain some of it.
    –There are also potential sample contamination problems, which might not be a problem for younger samples with greater quantities of C-14, but show up at very low C-14 concentrations.

    You also referred to the YEC idea of accelerated nuclear decay, which is the main theme of ICR’s RATE project. I have looked at it and am thoroughly unconvinced. The amount of heat produced by this in such a short time would have been sufficient to melt, or even vaporize, the Earth.

    Comment by geochristian | June 30, 2009

  73. Intersting how we cant trust any scientist who believes in a young creation but we are so readily able to believe athiests views on an old earth and this is supposed to be a Christian site :)

    Whats even more interesting is when the evolution theory first came out the earth was only 40 000 years old this moved to 4 million then to 40 billion thats quite a flaw in the theory itself dont you think? are you going to base your exitence on a theory which has proved itself to be over 99 percent innacurate? It seems so, rather we choose this than to belief what the Bible tells us about a 6 day creation

    Could the this error not be due to the fact that we are steadily putting out exponential amounts of carbon into the earth more so now than ever before?

    Could this be why carbon dating was orginally measured years back at 40 000 years now its measuring at 4 billion years? Hmmm did you know that the carbon put out by each passengers consumption on an areoplane is the same amount a microwave does on full power for three months how many passegers on ariplanes and how many flights going around the world every day…

    I guess all these factors have nothing to do with the theory that itselsf keeps evolving from year to year :)

    Would be interesting to see the same carbon dating methods that these evolutionists tested been done again i bet all the text books will need to be changed so they read the earth is 1 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 years old and then i bet we will still be sitting here arguing about the legitmacy of it instead of just reading the Bible…

    There are many secrets revealed in the Bible to prove a young earth read it and you find them!

    In the beginning are the first words this does not mean somewhere after millions of years old God created the heavens and the earth

    It means in the beginning… Why we think it means anything else is beyong me

    If we cant get past the basics of the first sentence how will we ever realise the secrets left for us in throughout the living word of God?

    Anyway at leats we will all realise on judgment day what the truth is and that day is coming soon as Jesus said.

    No one knows the day but there will be signs and wanders there will be scoffers of the word it seems the time is near

    Comment by Thyran | June 30, 2009

  74. Thyran:

    Your most recent post reveals a number of misunderstandings:

    –I don’t come across equally hard on all young-Earth creationists. There are some whom I respect, even if I think they are wrong (Biblically and geologically) about the age of the Earth. An example is Paul Garner at http://thenewcreationism.wordpress.com/. I come down on Kent Hovind’s teachings because they are anti-apologetics.

    –The age of the Earth was widely accepted to be in the hundreds of millions of years several decades before Darwin published Origin of Species. It did not go from 40,000 to 4 million to 40 billion as you state. The currently accepted age for the Earth of 4.5 billion years has been accepted by geologists since the 1950s, and it isn’t going to inflate to “1 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 years old” as you suggest.

    –A number of scholars who believe in Biblical inerrancy accept an old Earth, taking the six days to be either God’s days (which are different than our days), to represent longer periods of time, or to be a literary device. Christian leaders who acknowledge that an old Earth is Biblically possible include Charles Spurgeon, Francis Schaeffer, John Piper, C.S. Lewis, and many others.

    –Carbon-14 dating has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the Earth. It is used for dating objects back to 60,000 years, which is useless for anything in the millions of years. So the amount of carbon dioxide that humans pump into the atmosphere is irrelevant.

    –I’m not looking for secrets in the Bible, but for the clear meaning of the text. For an example of where young-Earth creationists go beyond the plain meaning of the text, read http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/death-before-the-fall-an-old-earth-biblical-perspective/.

    –No old-Earth creationist denies that God created the universe “in the beginning,” so I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. In Genesis 1, the phrase “In the beginning” is both a summary of the entire chapter, and something that seems to occur before the events of the six days.

    –I, too, look forward to the return of Christ.

    Yes, this is a Christian site. I affirm the inerrancy of the Bible, the fallen nature of humanity through Adam’s sin, the deity of Christ, his sacrifice on the cross as our substitute, and the necessity of faith in Christ. I also affirm that God created the universe, that it is good, and that through scientific investigation we can understand the universe.

    Comment by geochristian | June 30, 2009

  75. These are poor answers from geochristian.

    1) Regarding the carbon 14 recently found in diamonds: Remember that a dropped ball, though it remains at any given moment just half-way to the ground, nevertheless does hit bottom. With a half-life of just 5,700 years there should be no detectable carbon 14 remaining in a billion-year-old diamond. If nothing else, the experiment shows that we are not entitled to the certainty we have tended to ascribe to radioisotope dating in general.

    And saying that Brown and Hovind are “out of the mainstream” of young earth science is odd. What mainstream? The whole of young earth and creation science is out of the mainstream! That kind of assertion carries no meaningful information and seems like little more than an attempt to cast suspicion on a man’s entire body of work without intellectual work. Sorry. I have his book and its quite a fascinating work of scolarship. Ignore it at your own risk.

    Men like Brown and Hovind are nothing if not audacious. Its what I admire about them. It takes such men to assault the beach head of ingrained scientific thinking. They tackle everything and their ideas are many. You can’t just look at the “iffiest” of their theories, dismiss it, and then dismiss all of the rest of them from consideration as well. If you could, we would have had to dismiss ‘establishment’ science in total a long time ago.

    Brown’s hydrostste theory is just that, a theory. And as long as it explains the data it remains valid. Don’t like it? Move on. What about all the rest of his book? If even half of the stuff is right, its a revolution. And a lot of it is very convincing.

    And I think I must agree Thyran about this site. Despite promoting itself as Christian, it really sounds a lot like the defensive and reactionary sites defending Darwinism (and I KNOW that religion is a fraud).

    Those of us who know God through Jesus love truth. We delight at each new discovery that might lead to a greater convergence between formal science and God’s word. I see no evidence of that delight here. “Evolution” and “deep time” are closely related and have proven to be huge engine’s of atheism, as both seem hopelessly out of line with the outline of creation we’ve been given in the Bible. Darwin is dead. Perhaps you’re next. God does seem to be moving strongly in the world today. Know anything about the Biblical prophecy of “restitution?”

    You have placed too much faith in your assumption that atomic decay rates have always remained constant. This is the same mistake made in uniformitarian thinking, which is also under serious scientific criticism. We know too little of the actual circumstances of creation to be so sure. This site might be more interesting if you were discussing possible factors that can influence atomic decay. We know of some. There must be more. You might get famous. In any case, had we been willing to accept deep time unreservably, we would never have visited the moon for fear of disappearing into fathoms of moon dust!

    Too much certainty is born of pride, and we know what our creator thinks of pride. He sets traps for the wise, and reveals truth to the humble. You have developed a siege mentality reminiscent of Darwinism. Despite attempts at ‘theistic evolution’, the Bible could never really be reconciled to Darwin. Guess what. The Bible wins. Darwin now makes William Jennings Bryan look like a genius. Are you sure you’re not next?

    Comment by Gary Navarre | June 30, 2009

  76. Genesis 1

    1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

    4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

    5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

    This is scripture there was nothing before the fist day the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    Where does it say there was anything before the first day?

    Secondly where is your scripture references that proves that a day is anything more than a day or a day is millions of years old?

    I agree Gary these so called Christians are pro Darwin trying to mislead people from the truth!

    Comment by Thyran | July 1, 2009

  77. I’m guessing that the reason geochristian described Hovind and Brown as outside the mainstream is that the biggest creationist organizations have put out some statements countering the scientific errors that Hovind put forward. Their “Arguments Creationists Shouldn’t Use” page is almost 100% against items that Hovind used.

    Ditto for Brown. AiG has had a few different models that they’ve proposed for plate tectonics and other geologic actions, and Browns is one that they have very definitely rejected. They entertained it back in the 90s (could have been 80s) as a possibility, but have since rejected it as completely untenable.

    If you feel Brown and Hovind are correct in their science and have been wronged by groups like AiG and ICR, you might want to try writing AiG and ICR to get them to back off their rejections of Brown and Hovind.

    Like it or not, AIG and ICR are the 800 pound gorillas when it comes to the creationism movement. Anyone that they reject as using bad/faulty science is almost by definition outside the mainstream of creationism.

    Comment by WebMonk | July 1, 2009

  78. Gary (#75):

    –Carbon-14 — I don’t know that you carefully read what I said about C-14. It forms in the crust of the Earth by the same sort of mechanism that it forms in the atmosphere, but at a much slower rate. The fact that C-14 has a half-life of 5700 years doesn’t mean that its concentration in the atmosphere is going down, because it is constantly replenished by nuclear reactions. Likewise, it is constantly replenished in the crust (including in diamonds) by nuclear reactions, although at much lower concentrations.

    –The mainstream of young-Earth creationism is represented by organizations such as ICR and AiG, both of which have individuals whom I respect, even if I strongly disagree with them. There are people and organizations (e.g. Hovind, Bible.ca) that don’t have the expertise of some of the people at the mainstream organizations, and who commonly say crazy things that would be weeded out at AiG or ICR.

    –I could come up with an audacious theory as well. The vikings came from Minnesota. The Kensington runestone proves it. Further evidence is found in the viking settlements in Newfoundland, Greenland, and Iceland. My Norwegian ancestors emigrated to Minnesota because they were attracted back to their homeland by the runestone. Reverse C-14 dating backs this all up. (You see right through this because you are trained in archeology. I feel the same way about Hovind as you feel about my runestone theory. I’m not just looking at the iffiest theories of Hovind; I’m considering the whole package).

    –My point was that Brown’s hydroplate theory doesn’t explain the data.

    –You love the truth? I do too, and find that truth in its highest form in Jesus Christ, who said “love the Lord your God with all your mind.” To use bad arguments in defense of God’s holy, inerrant word violates this command, and the young-Earth creationism movement uses bad arguments in great abundance. Some are willing to learn (AiG and ICR have thrown out some of the really bad arguments). Others seem stuck in a rut.

    –Evolution and deep time are two separate issues. There are old-Earthers who are every bit as much opposed to evolution as are YECs (e.g. Hugh Ross). I could go either way; the Bible doesn’t really say anything about what degree God used “natural” processes in the creation process (except for things like “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds” (Gen 1:24 ESV), which implies that God used natural processes as well as creation from nothing).

    –Scientists knew that the moon was not covered by a thick layer of fine dust by the early 1960s. Hovind is still using 1950s data in his moondust argument. I don’t know why you are defending him in this.

    –William Jennings Bryan accepted an old Earth (day-age theory).

    Comment by geochristian | July 1, 2009

  79. Thyran (#76):

    “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

    That was the starting point. Verse two picks up with a description of what the earth was then like. Verse one might be part of this first day, or it might precede it. The text doesn’t say.

    Scripture references that indicate that “day” could be non-literal?

    –Within the first creation passage (which I believe is perfectly compatible with the second creation passage in chapter 2), the word “day” is used in a non-literal sense at least once. Genesis 2:4 says, “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” (ESV). “Day” here refers to the entire creation week.

    –The seven days of creation and rest are not just used as the pattern for our week, but for sabbatical years and the year of Jubilee.

    –Moses, the author of Genesis, uses the word “day” very loosely in Psalm 90:4 “For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night” (ESV). The context of this verse is creation (read the entirety of Psalm 90).

    You ought to be far more concerned about your doctrine of justification than my doctrine of creation. Now you are calling me a “so called Christian” because I accept an old Earth. Is being a Christian now based on someone’s acceptance of a young-Earth?

    Comment by geochristian | July 1, 2009

  80. it seems no matter how much evidence has been put forward the same irrelvant response is always returned :)

    Still i have no scripture refrences to indicate that a day is a million years old why you think a day is not a day is beyond me

    Secondly if a day is not a day and God said he rests on the seventh day then we should not have a sabatical day for millions of years but we all know that is not true but here you are proposing that it is to suit your theory however there is no proof that it is and there is no scripture to show this yet you pass it off as fact when its just a theory :)

    and if God created the earth and it took millions of years after the void when he began his creation why are we worried about millions of years where there was nothing just a void this shows this is all for nothing excuse the pun

    the timeline of generations from the beginning is recorded in the bible if the earth was millions of years old there would be not enough paper on the globe to print a bible big enough to record all those generations

    your carbon dating argument doesnt make any sense logically you basing your million year old belief on a theory which you claim to be the truth :)

    Comment by Thyran | July 1, 2009

  81. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/clock-in-rock

    A: Because of the intense evolutionary indoctrination we’ve all received, most people assume that it takes millions of years for sediment—like sand or mud—to harden into rock. But given the right ingredients, this can actually happen quickly. Mixing cement is an obvious example, by the way.
    fossil clock in rock fossil clock in rock

    Take a look at the picture of the mechanism of a clock encased in solid rock, along with sea shells. Of course, no one believes this clock was made millions of years ago. The clock was found in 1975 near a jetty at Westport, Washington. We know that there have been many shipwrecks in this area.

    Obviously, the right mix of sand and other substances hardened around this clock, making it look like a clock in hard rock!

    There’s really nothing spectacular about this at all—these sorts of things happen all the time in different parts of the world. But the average person doesn’t usually hear about them, and thus they go on thinking that rocks and fossils must take millions of years to form.

    This “clock in the rock” will eventually be displayed in our Creation Museum near Cincinnati, where we’ll be teaching people the truth about the history of the world … according to the Bible.

    Comment by Thyran | July 1, 2009

  82. Thyran:

    It is clear that I won’t convince you and you won’t convince me in regards to the age of the Earth.

    Do you really believe I am only a “so called Christian” because I accept an old Earth?

    Comment by geochristian | July 1, 2009

  83. Thyran:

    I’ve seen the clock-in-rock page before. No geologist denies that lithification (the process of converting sediments to rock) can happen rapidly in some situations. The statement “Because of the intense evolutionary indoctrination we’ve all received, most people assume that it takes millions of years for sediment—like sand or mud—to harden into rock” is a straw man argument.

    Comment by geochristian | July 1, 2009

  84. i really believe a christian should not judge others but lead by example

    i dont see any of us doing this here

    Comment by Thyran | July 1, 2009

  85. Thyran (#84):

    Is it un-Christian to point out that Hovind’s moondust, sea salt, or comet arguments are faulty? Is this being judgmental?

    Comment by geochristian | July 1, 2009

  86. Thyran, here are two of you quotes:

    “i really believe a christian should not judge others but lead by example”

    “I agree Gary these so called Christians are pro Darwin trying to mislead people from the truth!”

    You say you shouldn’t judge others while calling geochristian and others “so called Christians”?

    Comment by WebMonk | July 1, 2009

  87. Perhaps that’s because your Christianity has so far been difficult to discern in your attitude towards Hovind and a truly young earth. But I accept geochristian’s forthright, unreserved self-description of his beliefs and am mollified.

    There’s at least one thing that Hovind says with which you cannot disagree – and that’s his assertion that “God is quite capable of saying what He means!” So, “In the Beginning” should be understandable within the basic rhythm and continuity of the remaining text. If it is not, then full grasp and appreciation of His creation would seem to be the sole province of highly educated scientists, and He would appear to have given an advantage to the formally educated, as opposed to the less so. Maybe, but judging by the rest of His written word, it seems He prefers to work the other way around! The assertion of absolute scientific certainty in such matters is born of pride, another issue for which God has shown consistent enmity.

    There has been an undeniable symbiosis between Darwinian evolution and uniformitarianism from the beginning of their global popularization and rapid spread. They were mutually re-enforcing ideas and so, the demise of one (Darwin) seems to imply fallacies in the other as well. When both are gone, that leaves us only with radioisotope dating as a presumed temporal “anchor” to the unknowable past. And that is not much. Even while a real Christian scientist might remain as yet dismissive of all present attempts to ‘hoist the anchor’, I would think that he would also be looking at the weak points of establishment theory for evidence that might indeed bring about more convergence between God’s word and contemporary science. But we don’t see that on this site. All too often you present is a siege mentality – not unlike the Darwinists.

    And you still don’t get it. Hovind frequently confesses that his own theory, and the more speculative stuff in his lectures, may indeed be wrong. He does not profess to be a scientist engaged in original research on the cutting edge. Rather, his message is at least 70% devoted to demolishing and/or destabilizing establishment theories & proclamations regarding origins. You would be surprised how many souls have been led to believe that evolution, for example, is proven fact. This lie, far worse than any mistake Hovind may have made, has in turn had a profoundly negative impact on faith. For where I find atheism, I usually find Darwinism.

    Hovind leads an effective, science-based attack on the tyranny of science so-called with its presumed inerrancy. He exposes the vulnerability of this belief-dictating monster by evicting it from its castle of protection and privilege – the classroom. To me he resembles the little boy who in the well-known fable exclaimed: “The King has no clothes!”. He offers compelling evidence while admitting that his alternative theories might be wrong, but are useful nonetheless to spur thinking.

    When religion has attacked science it has been properly chastened. The same should occur when the opposite infringement occurs. Science is attempting to take its good reputation from the laboratory into the matter of ultimate origins, where it must of necessity encounter religion. If their theories impact people’s faith, then they must be challenged, for in this realm science is frequently just a wandering explorer – nothing more.

    Hovind’s ministry is to people, not scientists. His message is liberating to them less because of the new theories he occasionally offers, than for its frequently compelling assault on faith-destroying establishment theories that have reached fact status in the public’s imagination. Here Hovind shines, and we cannot wait until every detail is worked out to inform the public where they have been greatly mislead.

    Hovind will also grow and learn as new and better arguments emerge, and will upgrade his message accordingly. So we ask you to remember – he is not the enemy!

    Comment by Gary Navarre | July 2, 2009

  88. Gary:

    Thanks for your comment.

    I am sorry if somehow I have come across as having some sort of personal grudge against Hovind. I don’t. I think his sentence was harsh and I wish he weren’t in prison, but I do think it is of his own doing. I do not rejoice in his predicament.

    My attitude regarding the age of the Earth is no different than that of J.I. Packer, C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, or Charles Spurgeon. Do you have a difficult time accepting that they are Christians because of they accept an old Earth?

    I agree that God is perfectly capable of expressing himself in his Word. I also agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Section VII: “All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” ( http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ )

    Let me give an example of where science helps to make the meaning of a passage more clear. In Genesis 30, we have the story of Jacob taking care of Laban’s flocks.

    “Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted. And Jacob separated the lambs and set the faces of the flocks toward the striped and all the black in the flock of Laban. He put his own droves apart and did not put them with Laban’s flock. Whenever the stronger of the flock were breeding, Jacob would lay the sticks in the troughs before the eyes of the flock, that they might breed among the sticks, but for the feebler of the flock he would not lay them there. So the feebler would be Laban’s, and the stronger Jacob’s.” (Gen 30:37-43 ESV).

    A naive interpretation of this passage would be that Jacob had some sort of knowledge of genetics. If one were overly literal about this passage, the conclusion might be to base true-to-the-Bible genetics on this, and to say that Mendelian genetics is of the Devil. I would rather take a different approach: that modern genetics gives us insight to this passage that readers in previous times would not have had. By modern genetics, we know that the color of the offspring has nothing to do with peeling strips of bark off of trees. What this story is illustrating is not the intelligence of Jacob, but the sovereignty of God in Jacob’s life apart from Jacob’s own attempts to build his flocks. My point is that science can legitimately be used to force us to take a closer look at a passage, and to come to a fuller understanding of what God intended.

    I acknowledge that evolution has been used as a tool to discredit Christianity. I would add that this is not necessarily inherent in evolution itself. Many (on both sides of the argument) make it out to be this way, but it doesn’t have to be so. One could say the same about archeology; it has been used by some to discredit the Bible. Is that something inherent in archeology? Of course not. It is the abuse of archeology that causes it to be, in the hands of some, opposed to Christianity. Same with evolution. I really don’t think you can make a strong case against evolution from the pages of Scripture, and remember that YECs advocate rapid evolution after the flood and see no Scriptural problem with it.

    Geologists determined that the Earth must be tens or hundreds of millions of years old before Darwin and before radiometric dating. Even if both of these were proven wrong, geologists would continue to advocate an old Earth for other reasons.

    I don’t doubt that Hovind admits that he could be wrong about some things. I could certainly be wrong about some things as well. But although Hovind might be effective in convincing housewives and carpenters of certain things, his arguments have the opposite effect among scientists. I am not in any way saying that to be an intellectual makes one superior. I am only saying that the end does not justify the means.

    Many will reject Christianity because of the foolishness of the cross. The problem is that we Christians often add our own foolishness (Paluxy River footprints, stories of dinosaurs wandering the forests of Africa, decaying magnetic fields, moon dust, shrinking sun, hyper-rapid evolution after the flood…) and then pat ourselves on the back for being fools for Christ. This is not loving God with all our minds, nor is it humble.

    Hovind is not my enemy. But he isn’t a whole lot of help in fighting the enemy in certain circles.

    Comment by geochristian | July 2, 2009

  89. Since we believe what the Bible says and the only other evidence that we have that a day is not a day see below.

    We in terms of the Bible revelations should not believe the earth is anything older than a couple of thousand years

    This is according to scripture and since we have been given instruction not to alter a word, until such time someone has pointed out that scripturally the earth is millions of years old believing in it is not from God’s word!

    But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:8,9)

    Comment by Thyran | July 20, 2009

  90. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/the-ultimate-proof-of-creation

    Note from AiG President Ken Ham:

    I believe this is one of the most important creationist books available today to teach people how to think biblically and how to argue logically in the defense of the Christian faith.

    If only churches and families had taught this material to their congregations and children, there would have been much less compromise in the church. People would have been less likely to have been led astray by compromise and would have readily recognized the illogical arguments of believing in an old earth and other supposed “evidences”—ideas that have caused so many to question the authority of Scripture, leading many of them to leave the church.

    Comment by Thyran | July 21, 2009

  91. Thyran:

    Thanks for pointing to the link for Lisle’s book. The three arguments for God’s existence given on the web page are valid whether the Earth is young or old—though I would have worded them a little differently—-so are irrelevant to the discussion we have had here.

    For a really bad argument for a young Earth from Lisle, see my post Aluminum and the 100-year old oceans, which I’ve referred to before.

    Comment by geochristian | July 21, 2009

  92. Thanks had a look at your post of the link it means nothing to me and doesnt prove anything about the earth being millions of years old…

    All i was able to make out from the post was that you once again you gave your opinion over a small tribule fact which you couldnt get your head around and then discredited the author of the book instead of absorbing the entire context and then making a decision from there.

    As you said you have paged through the book but havent read it yet, straight afterwards you tell the world that there isnt anything new in the book? How would you know if you havent read it? Later you go on to say Chaffey has degrees in theology so his misunderstanding is understandable; Lisle has a PhD in astrophysics and his distortion of science here is difficult to fathom

    I really think its funny how all these scrientists who give hundreds of reasons why the earth cannot be millions of years old the only ones you seem to remember are the ones that you disagree with?

    Why is that? It seems everyone in the world is wrong but you and anyone who stands for evoltuion and a million or billion year old earth you pass of that evidenece as legit even when there is scientifical evidence to prove that it is wrong.

    The age of the earth doesnt really matter here what matters is that you portray a message of Love which i cannot see anywhere on this site all i see is slandering and scoffing.

    Once again please send me scriptures to show that the earth is millions of years old. I have scriptures to prove to you that it isnt have you got one to prove that it is?

    What a sad world it would be if God was bound by science :)

    Comment by Thyran | July 21, 2009

  93. I’m still amused that geochristian says he teaches Noah and the flood, but then claims that Hovind’s young earth theories seriously hurt his “science ministry.” Say what?? If the Ark doesn’t bother your potential converts, why would a very young earth be so great an obstacle?

    Here’s what I think: The symbiotic relationship between Darwinism and uniformitarianism that I’ve alluded to before – is an historically real fact. One of these delusions – abiogenisis arisng to natural selection and evolution – is on the run. And as the quotes I’ve also sent before from eminent geologists may seem to suggest – you old earth geologists are next.

    “And for this reason [pride] God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie” (2 Thess 2:11). Watch out now geochristian – what if you’re on the wrong side?

    Comment by Gary Navarre | July 21, 2009

  94. We could all learn from a man like this!

    “Thirty-Six Things I Love and Appreciate about Dr. Kent Hovind”
    From his wife, Jo Hovind

    1. He genuinely loves God!
    2. He loves me!
    3. He loves children – all children- but especially ours!
    4. His contagious enthusiasm for all that he sets out to accomplish.
    5. The twinkle in his eye when it’s only he and I that understand a non-verbal communication.
    6. He knows how to fix stuff!
    7. He CARES when something is broken!
    8. He follows through the knowing, and the caring, to the actual REPAIRING!
    9. He loves souls!
    10. His wink!
    11. His hair when it has the wind-blown look!
    12. He still loves me even though I posess a much smaller vocabulary than his! (I am working on this!)
    13. He’s brave.
    14. He’s such a fantastic teacher!
    15. He loves to laugh!
    16. He is easy to cook for, because he’s not demanding and is not particular – just feed him.
    17. He truly appreciates anything I fix him to eat – even a peanut butter, blackberry jelly, cheese and bacon sandwich – light on the peanut butter, heavy on the jelly. (Yuck! But he loves it!)
    18. He appreciates the simple things in life, like a walk after supper with the family.
    19. His never-doubted faithfulness in our marriage!
    20. He truly loves his mother-in-law!
    21. The way he says my name.
    22. He adores his grandchildren and always has time for them!
    23. He loves to help others.
    24. He’s not a sports fan.
    25. He’s not a TV-aholic.
    26. He desires to do mighty things for the Kingdom of God.
    27. He doesn’t need expensive toys like most men.
    28. His wonderful gift to make the complex understandable for any age.
    29. His incredible energy.
    30. He lets me sleep in if the schedule permits.
    31. He taught our children to appreciate and take care of their mother.
    32. He always led in fun-filled, family devotions!
    33. He’s a very hard worker.
    34. He truly appreciates a clean house.
    35. He reaches out to the unloved as well as the loved.
    36. He fully appreciates God’s creation, but loves the Creator even more!

    Happy 36th Anniversary, Kent! I love you!

    Comment by Thyran | July 22, 2009

  95. Thyran (#92):

    You said: All i was able to make out from the post was that you once again you gave your opinion over a small tribule fact which you couldnt get your head around

    So what was wrong with my argument? Do you believe the oceans are only 100 years old?

    Slandering involves saying something untrue about someone. Is saying “Hovind is wrong because __________” malicious or unloving? He would say that I am wrong. Is he therefore unloving as well?

    I cannot show you a verse in the Bible that says the Earth is millions or billions of years old. What I have attempted to do is to show that young-Earth creationist arguments that require a 6000-year old Earth are not valid either. I will stick to “In the beginning…” being in the unspecified past, just as the Bible itself does.

    ———————

    Gary (#93):

    And as the quotes I’ve also sent before from eminent geologists may seem to suggest – you old earth geologists are next.

    None of the quotes (except your first one from an M.D., not a geologist) back in comment #16 indicate that geologists are reconsidering the age of the Earth. The change has been the acknowledgment that sedimentation in most environments is usually episodic rather than continuous. Anyone who reads a young Earth into any of these quotes is seriously misunderstanding what any of these geologists are saying.

    Am I “on the wrong side” because I think Hovind’s arguments are really, really bad? How about C.S. Lewis, Charles Spurgeon, J.I. Packer, and Francis Schaeffer that I referred to earlier? Are (or were) they all “on the wrong side” as well?

    ———————

    Thyran (#94):

    Those are all very nice, and I’m glad the Hovinds’ marriage seems to be surviving their imprisonment. None of these items, however, has any relevance when discussing isotopes, sedimentary environments, rates of evolution, moon dust, or cometary impacts.

    Comment by geochristian | July 22, 2009

  96. Geochristian

    //You said: So what was wrong with my argument? Do you //believe the oceans are only 100 years old?

    What was wrong well ive already told you but if you cannot see it then im sorry you will need go back and re-read what i posted im not going to repeat myself!

    //I cannot show you a verse in the Bible that says the //Earth is millions or billions of years old. What I have //attempted to do is to show that young-Earth creationist //arguments that require a 6000-year old Earth are not //valid either. I will stick to “In the beginning…” being //in the unspecified past, just as the Bible itself does.

    Not valid? You have presented maybe a few arguments to show why the science creationists use is flawed but you have not mentioned the thousands that prove an old earth wrong? Instead you look at what you cant fathom and focus on the negativity instead of focusing on the bigger picture…

    I also think you need to read further into the bible than the first sentence of genises you will be greatly enlightened..

    //As you said
    //I will stick to “In the beginning…” being in the //unspecified past

    Lets have a look at verse two:
    Genisis 1.2
    And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    Now if the earth was without form how can you say it was old if the land life animals had not even been created yet…

    So now you need to do some more bible studies and come back to me with scriptures to prove your old earth except for your argument in Genisis 1.1 because all we need to do is use Gensis 1.2 to prove a flaw in your theory

    wakey wakey

    Comment by Thyran | July 29, 2009

  97. Thyran (#94):

    Those are all very nice, and I’m glad the Hovinds’ marriage seems to be surviving their imprisonment. None of these items, however, has any relevance when discussing isotopes, sedimentary environments, rates of evolution, moon dust, or cometary impacts.

    blah blah blah

    Yes they dont but neither do half your posts about Hovind have anything to do with science either… what has his prison sentence got to do with science

    please think before acting rightoeusly here when it was you slandered against people names first on this blog

    I think since you have slandered his name in your posts above is it not only fair that we discuss the nature of the man in a postive light so we can get a fair and just view and not just your view… otherwise you should have perhaps created a website instead of a blog

    Comment by Thyran | July 29, 2009

  98. An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
    Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Comment by Thyran | July 29, 2009

  99. Thyran, as far as the “thousands” of things that disprove an old earth, you’ve brought up precious few – things like moon dust, moon receding, C14 in diamonds, hydroplate theories, and some things like that.

    AiG rejects the moon dust argument. Hovind still uses it. Take it up with AiG about why they suggest Hovind is using bad science here.

    The moon’s receding action is also a non-problem since AiG _agrees_ the continents were joined together at one point. The tidal friction which causes the moon to move away would have been much less in the past when the continents were joined together, thus slowing the rate at which the moon would have been moving away. Go disagree with AiG if you think continents moving is the silliest thing you’ve ever heard, and if tidal friction affecting the moon doesn’t make sense to you. Take it up with AiG.

    The C14 in diamonds doesn’t prove anything against an old earth – C14 is expected in diamonds, even by old earth scientists. C14 is constantly being formed in many diamonds by radioactive decay. AiG makes it sound like C14 in diamonds disproves an old earth, but “old earth” scientists EXPECT C14 to be in gems like diamonds.

    The Hydroplate theory isn’t proof against an old earth, it’s an attempt to make a theory that allows for a young earth. AiG rejects it, along with almost every other scientist, but Hovind and Brown still support it. Again, take it up with AiG why they suggest Hovind uses bad science here.

    All those things were covered in lots of posts earlier. All those are examples of bad science that “proves” a young earth. Hovind still uses them anyway, along with things like the Paluxy footprints and ocean salt accumulation.

    As far as discussions of the Bible verses about Creation, Geo has had multiple posts that deal with the topic. Check out http://geochristian.wordpress.com/best-of/ for a few of them.

    Finally, I don’t know how many times it was mentioned above, dozens at least, but GeoChristian has stated repeatedly that he doesn’t hate Hovind. He thinks Hovind is wrong about science, wrong about taxes, and wrong in disobeying government laws. (Volume 26 of Congress’s laws state people DO have to pay income taxes and that the IRS is authorized to collect them.)

    Now, which one of those things is slander? Hovind stated in his court case that he paid his employees in cash to avoid taxes. Hovind stated that he believes 9/11 and Oklahoma City were US government actions. Is repeating Hovind’s own statements slander? Where is all this hate and slander you talk about?

    Slander is saying things about someone that are untrue and harmful. Saying you think someone is wrong is NOT slander, and neither is it hate.

    Hovind is probably a really nice guy, but he is dead wrong on most of his science and legal theories. That’s not slander.

    Comment by WebMonk | July 29, 2009

  100. The continents are not floating islands they are still connected and always have been so they were not joined together millions of years ago they have always been joined if you believe in the Bible you will see that in scripture

    You mentioned above theories of creation which you have problems with but what about the evidence out there that proves evolution incorrect are you saying you cant find one legitimate reason? Because for every theory of evolution that is out there there is a equal an opposite theory to prove it wrong therefore evolution is nothing but a theory.

    Evolutionsist have also been proven to create their own lies such as the supposed peppered moth which was ground breaking proof of evolution which later proved to be lie a scientist created with fake photographs

    have a look at the article

    http://www.icr.org/article/evolutionists-moth-myth/

    No creationist today questions the phenomena of variation and natural selection; most would not even question speciation. But, there is still no evidence whatever for macroevolution or the introduction of new information into the genetic system of any basic kind of organism, including the famous moth. Evolution has always been nothing but a pagan myth.

    Hovind is probably a really nice guy, but he is dead wrong on most of his science and legal theories. That’s not slander.

    That is slander how can you say he is dead wrong on most of his theories when you yourself havent even heard a 100th of them? Of the thousands of evidence he provides in his creation seminars you now claim that he is dead wrong on most of them? That statement is a perfect example of slandering

    Regarding the C14 diamonds coverage on AIG’s website now that they take a stance on the opposite side of evolution you discredit it too :) Yet on your early posts you refer to the AIG’s website as if they are the carriers of all the information we require to have faith in evolution… amusing in fact in this post you use them as proof that Hovind is wrong too :) So therefore can we assume that AIG arent the carriers of all the truths you percieve and if so could he not be worng about Hovind too if they are wrong about the diamonds?

    you say
    but “old earth” scientists EXPECT C14 to be in gems like diamonds.

    which ones are you referring too? because i have in the research that i have done found the opposite of this statement true, because you say its so doesnt make it true please provide evidence for this claim

    How about IDA the recent missing link discovery for proof of evolution :) they media made it out to be the absolute proof we have just discovered linking man to apes lol but the fossil was actually discovered over 20 years ago and they recently studied it for proof of evolution and found it in a racoon sized animal which is a lemur what a joke even evolutionsist dismiss it as proof yet some scientists are still claiming and using it in their theories to prove evolution such as the peppered moth!

    Have a look at your great resource in AIG for
    For many years, creation researchers have been studying the biblical record and the world around us to understand the history that God’s Word records. While some of their theories have been discarded as new data came to light, other predictions have been powerfully confirmed. Here are just a few of those predictions and the tests that confirmed them:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions

    Now please disprove these thories which have been proven scientifically correct and if they are scientificlally correct how can evolution exist? :)

    And Webmonk scripturally what evidence do you have to claim that the earth is anything older than a few thousand years?

    And thanks for responding for Geo christian i wasnt aware that he needed you to talk for him but all you have done just as geo christian is state problems with creation science that you disagree with what about about the evidence that is rock solid that proves evoltution wrong can we focus on that?

    Because i could sit here for days posting crap that evolutionists use as science which is anything but science…

    Evoltution is a religon it has never been proven scientifcially correct we have never found a fossil of an animal which cannot be linked to its orginal sepcies if evolution existed we would find thousands of fossils of animals which are sub species so thanks for your post but it also proves nothing but the fact that you have located one or two reasons that you disagree with that some creationsits use as proof that evoltuion doesnt exist and then dispelled the entire creation belief as false but you dont realise if you used that mentality with evolution it doesnt exist either so now i suppose you better become an aethist because there is nothing left for you to believe

    looking forward to your response

    Comment by Thyran | July 30, 2009

  101. Hello Kevin,
    I caught part of your blog last night and I would like to respectively disagree regarding your criticism of Kent Hovind.

    Hmmm…

    Mathew 22 does not direct us to pay taxes. It did direct the Hebrews to pay tribute.

    Tribute is paid to an occupying army or government. We in America have NEVER been conquered and therefore do not owe anybody tribute. We are free.

    If you will read in Mathew 17 Christ declares that we are free from the Kings of the Earth from paying tribute or custom. That leaders should only collect from strangers. Not it’s children or its citizens.

    I pay all my taxes, not out of any moral commitment, but out of fear. I don’t ever want one of the IRS’s masked entry teams kicking in my door and murdering my family, so I willing pay this governments extortion to avoid persecution. But not because God tells us to.

    Just as God provided a coin in the mouth of the fish he always provides what we need. Even to subdue highwaymen.

    Yours in Christ, Sir Christopher

    Comment by Sir Christopher | July 30, 2009

  102. Webmonk

    The right at the top of the page is the first example of slandering from geo christian…

    He writes

    I still run into young-Earth creationist web sites and bloggers who think that Hovind is a wonderful apologist for the truthfulness of Scriptures. But my advice is: run the other way! Don’t use his videos in your church or school! This stuff makes others laugh at Christianity, not because of the foolishness of the Gospel, but because of the utter foolishness of the reasoning.

    Is this not slander? Please if you cant even do the research on this page how can i believe a word you have said in your earlier posts?

    Boom

    Comment by Thyran | July 30, 2009

  103. By the way im not laughing at christianity after watching the Hovind seminars while there are some theories that he used that have since been disporved the thousands of theories and scriptures he shows us which supports his theories and not that of evolutionists has made me respect the man for standing with the word of God and not believing in evolution.

    Yes some of his theories may have been proven wrong but this in no way makes people laugh at Christianity how could it? Because he may be wrong in a few of his theories now a person laughs at Christinaity? im bewildered by this statement

    In fact you dont even know the stats so how can you even make the claim

    How many people has he brought to Christ and how many people have turned away because of Him?

    Give me the stats to prove this claim

    What a slanderous load of crap

    Comment by Thyran | July 30, 2009

  104. Thyran, in astronomy circles of scientists, the stupidity of some of the creationist “science” speakers is a popular butt of jokes. I didn’t hear them speak of Hovind by name, but the “moon dust” issue was a recurring item of mockery of Christians.

    My co-workers laughed at all Christians because of the stupidity of a few Christians. Is that fair? Of course not. Is that what will inevitably happen when Christians say stupid/false things? Of course.

    Does Hovind’s “science” drive some people away? Yes.
    Does it drive everyone away? No.

    GeoChristian didn’t claim it drove EVERYONE away. It’s not slander to say truthfully that Hovind’s “science” drives some people away for reasons divorced from the message of Scripture. Again, where is the slander?

    Should Christians promote false science because it attracts some people who don’t know better? No. Christians are to be truthful in all we do; we are NOT to ignore falsehoods even if the falsehoods attract people.

    Preaching things like moon dust, receding moon, Paluxy footprints, frozen airplanes, etc, as proof of a young earth is FALSE and should not be taught by people who represent Christ.

    Hovind still preaches all those things even though they are false. Regardless of how many are attracted compared to how many are driven away, Christians are to speak truthfully, and Hovind is speaking lots and lots of falsehoods when he speaks of “science”.

    Comment by WebMonk | July 30, 2009

  105. again focusing on what you disagreed with how many times do we need to go through the same thing before you realise you are only commenting on what you disagree with what about the creation science which has been scientifically proven correct as mentioned in my above post can you please inform me as to why you disagree with those with scientifical evidence to back up your theory

    you say geochristian didnt say all lol please read what he did say so you can defend him properly your comment on this just shows that you are unable to look at the facts he did say This stuff makes others laugh at Christianity

    no where does he say some? so why are you claiming he did

    And im not laughing and i know there are millions out there that arent laughing too so sorry but you wrong and so is geo chirsitian wrong

    you claim he is still preaching these things which have been proveed as bad arguments how? He is in jail? what an obsurd statement to make

    would love to see you prove the science wrong that proves creation true can we get off the moon dust topic or are you going to let that be the basis of your faith? because you dont believe in one aspect of creation science you dispell the whole lot when there are thousands of other evidence which proves evolution wrong?

    give me a scripture in the bible to show evolution the truth about our existence and i will hands down accept it but there is not one in fact there are many scriptures to prove evolution doesnt exist yet you still walk blindly saying you believe the bible and yet still belive in evolution

    can you respond to my previous post regarding the peppered moth and IDA

    anyway this is really getting boring if i have to hear you talk about moon dust once more to prove creation doesnt exist i think i will vomit

    Comment by Thyran | July 30, 2009

  106. your belief in floating continents should make everybody who believes in evolution run to the doors of creationism that alone shows me you dont have a clue about what you talking about

    your astrnomoist scientists that laugh at moon dust what do they say about your floating continent theory im sure they will be far more amused with that than your red moon dust problem

    Comment by Thyran | July 30, 2009

  107. As I wrote recently on this website, I believe “Ultimate Proof” is one of the most important creationist books to teach people how to think biblically and how to argue logically in the defense of the Christian faith. In fact, people would have been less likely to have been led astray by compromise regarding the book of Genesis and would have easily recognized the illogical arguments of believing in an old earth and other supposed “evidences” had this book been available earlier Ken Ham from AIG

    Comment by Thyran | July 30, 2009

  108. Are there billions of years between verses one and two?
    Written by: Kyle Winkler

    For thousands of years, nearly all Christians believed that the earth was about six thousand years old as revealed in God’s Word. But by the early 1800s the literal interpretation of Genesis fell under fire. Initially popularized by Scottish theologian Thomas Chalmers and later by the Scofield Reference Bible, the gap theory became a convenient method by which theologians compromise Holy Scripture with Darwin’s evolution theory.

    The Bible teaches “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth” and continues by saying “the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep” (Genesis 1:1-2). Proponents of the gap theory suggest there is a gap between those two verses that accounts for Satan’s rebellion, dinosaurs, a geological record, and billions of years of evolution.

    That “gap,” however, is nothing more than an attempt to harmonize God’s perfect Word with man’s imperfect thoughts. In fact, it is irreconcilable with the rest of Scripture. The words “without form, and void” in Genesis 1:2 come from the Hebrew phrase “tohu waw bohu,” which means “unformed and unfilled.” This indicates the earth was not yet formed or filled.

    Further discrepancies between Scripture and the gap theory are seen when looking at the law God gave Moses. As God etched the Ten Commandments in stone, He said, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Exodus 20:11). God unmistakably says that everything was made in six days. This would include angels, heaven, earth, and mankind–everything.

    The gap theory also disagrees with New Testament Scripture. The Bible is clear that “by man came death” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22) and “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Romans 5:12). These passages undeniably teach that the first sin came by Adam and that there was no death before sin. Therefore, it is incompatible to teach that a civilization existed before Adam, because it would place death before sin–a direct contradiction to Scripture.

    Comment by Thyran | July 30, 2009

  109. Beetles, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid
    Written by: John Hinton

    The example of the bombardier is probably given more often than any other example as a proof against evolution. This amazing insect has two sacs, one of which contains hydrogen peroxide, and the other contains hydroquinone. The beetle also has a third compartment into which these two substances are injecting when the beetle feels threatened. A third liquid, an enzyme, is then injected into this chamber and acts as a catalyst to cause this noxious fluid to heat up to near boiling and to shoot it out of an outlet duct with amazing accuracy at the offending animal. The hot chemical soup is shot through a sphincter controlled firing mechanism that is in itself quite amazing.

    Not only is this a beautiful example of irreducible complexity, but it makes evolutionary theory seem even wackier than ever. Evolutionary theorist and intellectual lightweight Richard Dawkins has tried to say that this was simply nature making use of materials that it had around. Not only does this preposterous argument require that nature must have had forethought and design, but it fails to explain why these substances would be lying around in the beetle in the first place if they were not intended to be used as parts of a defense mechanism. Even in the ridiculously unlikely event that the beetle would evolve two chambers to contain otherwise useless liquids, it is even more absurd to propose that a third chamber for the catalyst, and a fourth chamber for the three to combine, would come into existence along with a highly sophisticated system of sphincters for a shooting mechanism all at the same time.

    This beetle is a particularly good proof that evolutionists are stupid. They only stutter or babble irrelevantly when presented with this example. The only argument that I’ve even seen was from a numbskull (I believe that it was Dawkins) who was criticizing a creation scientists for leaving out the catalyst from his description. In other words he was arguing against the creationist view by pointing out that the whole apparatus was much more complicated than the creationist had stated, and that the impossibility of it having come into being by chance was even greater. Two chemicals were proof enough of design; three chemicals are even greater proof! We could use more enemies like Dawkins.

    One would think that these wannabe scientists would get excited about such a proof and it might occur to them that if there were a designer, then their lives need not be empty, futile and completely pointless as they are now. They would then have a reason to pursue knowledge, instead of having wasted, useless lives geared toward the pursuit of erudite babbling that serves no purpose. What point is there in pursuing “knowledge” when they believe that their only outcome is to become one with the soil? Why would it matter to a person with such a belief what anyone believed? On the other hand, someone with a functioning brain would alter their worldview when faced with such strong evidence of creation. The evolutionist not only wastes his time with nonsense, but with nonsense that would have no value to anyone even if it were true. What makes this even more illogical is that they deify nature anyway. By positing that nature designed such creatures, they have posited that nature is an intelligent force.

    How could a non-intelligent force design anything? They have posited a designed universe with an impersonal designer that doesn’t think or judge. What does that do to their claim that there is no creator at all? Either the world came about by chance or it was designed. They seem to want it both ways, but of course, their real reason that they want to deny God is that they hate what is good and those who do good. Logic and reason take second place to that hatred. This is the true mark of a reprobate mind, and a very undeveloped one at that. The bombardier beetle is another thing for which we can thank God, because they make utter fools out of evolutionists.

    Comment by Thyran | July 30, 2009

  110. WebMonk (#99):

    Thanks for your comments and your insights.

    ====================================

    Sir Christopher (#101):

    Thanks for your comment and welcome to The GeoChristian. I hadn’t heard the “tribute” argument regarding “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” But if Jesus advocated paying tribute to the evil Roman Empire (instead of going out to join the Zealots), how much more should we pay taxes to our own government, even if we don’t agree with it on certain policies. Additionally, Paul tells the Romans in Romans 13 to faithfully pay their taxes, and I don’t see any way around this. Many in the church in Rome would have been citizens, and many were not. Paul did not differentiate between them; they were obligated to pay. In the United States, churches are not taxed, but their employees are. For employees of the church not to pay taxes is in violation of Romans 13 (and I still believe of Matt 22 as well).

    With respect,
    Kevin N

    Comment by geochristian | July 30, 2009

  111. Cat & Dog Paws, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid
    Written by: John Hinton

    Any tracker, from beginner to expert, knows the difference between canine and feline tracks and would never mistake one for the other. Dogs leave nail marks in all of their tracks, while cats never do. This in itself may not seem too striking, but it is a wonderful fact that helps make evolutionists look stupid. What amazes me so much is that I have read numerous books on tracking in which the author makes some idiotic allusion to our distant past as apes, or to the evolution of four-legged critters. All they need to do to know that this is idiotic is to look at the tracks of dogs and cats, but I guess that they are missing the forest due to the trees.

    Cats have retractable claws and dogs do not. Dogs rely on their teeth to hunt, while cats rely mostly on their claws. A dog only uses its claws to help it with its footwork when it is walking or running, digging, holding pray once its caught and scratching fleas and such. They do not need to be sharp like the cat’s claws so they do not need protection. What is amazing is that the cat’s claws are retracted to protect them when they are not in use and they are only ejected when the cat needs to use them to hunt, defend itself, climb or for sharpening purposes. This requires specialized muscles to extend the claws like a switchblade and a specially designed sheath for these claws for when they are drawn back. It is absurd to assume that these specially designed features would have evolved by chance.

    What did the cats do before they “evolved” the amazing feature of having retractable claws. They would have to have behaved like dogs. What made them decide to behave like cats and how did mindless Mother Nature respond by sticking those specially designed muscles in their paws? Was it by chance that these muscles and sheaths showed up at the same time? Did they think them into existence? Did they develop gradually over millions of years? If the latter is the case, how did they get along during the transition? Of course, they both do just fine as they were made, so why would it have been necessary for the design of either to be changed? It does not take a lot of brains to realize that they are both obviously well designed (especially dogs — no offence to any of you who might be cat people). All of the alternatives are preposterous.

    Comment by Thyran | July 30, 2009

  112. Dewclaws, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid
    Written by: John Hinton

    Pigs have two short toes that do not touch the ground that are called dewclaws. Evolutionists suggest that these are vestigial because they do not understand their use, but they fail to explain why they are vestigial. If the dewclaw were useless on a modern pig, what possible use could it have had on an earlier type of pig? These same scientists are unable to suggest a possible “pre-evolutionary” use for this body part!

    This is a dilemma for evolutionists for a very good reason; they are nitwits. I imagine that these scientists would rather steal a few hundred thousand dollars from taxpayers in order to research the dilemma, but it they really want to know the purpose of dewclaws, they simply need to ask someone with some sense, like a tracker, a hunter, a dog breeder, or a farmer. Those of us who know much of anything about animals know that numerous animals other than pigs have these dewclaws, including deer, cats, and dogs.

    As a tracker I know that it is quite common for some of the toes in tracks to fail to be visible. This is because they do not touch the ground in all situations, or they do so with differing amounts of force. It is very rare to see all of the toes in the tracks of certain animals. This does not mean that those digits are useless. My dog, like all dogs, has dewclaws that do not come close to touching the ground when she is standing or walking, however, she recently cracked a toenail on one of those toes. It stands to reason that she does perform an activity where those toes do come into solid and forceful contact with the ground in order for a toenail to crack.

    Making a declaration that she has no use for those toes because some nutty professor is not smart enough to figure out the use is silly, to say the least. Dewclaws are used when they are running, especially when they are running uphill! Without them their forelegs would repeatedly bang against the ground and become bruised and scraped up. In the case of dogs and pigs they may also come into contact with the ground when they are digging, crawling, or a number of other activities. An evolutionist-designed dog would develop infections and die from gangrene after a short while. Fortunately for dogs and other creatures, God designed them, not ivory tower quasi-intellectuals.

    Comment by Thyran | July 30, 2009

  113. Spiders, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid
    Written by: John Hinton

    Last summer there was a huge garden spider in the center of an intricate web next to our deck. I spent a few minutes watching it every day for a couple of weeks as this miraculous creature bounced up and down on its web. I can’t honestly say that I like spiders, especially the brown recluse-like spider that made a nest in the pants that I almost put on a couple of months ago from off the floor (I smashed it too fast to discern if it was a recluse or not).

    Likewise, I can’t say that I liked the big black one that ran into the pile of papers behind my computer not too long ago, which kept surfacing in different parts of our house for a few days. Nevertheless, they do fascinate me to a great extent, and I do have a great appreciation of the creative genius that our Creator used to design these creatures. I also appreciate the many wonderful ways that spiders have of making evolutionists look stupid.

    Spiders are able to make seven different types of webs, which they use for different purposes, such as for catching prey, for walking on, for anchor points, for wrapping prey, and for other functions. It is ridiculous to suggest that a creature could randomly develop the irreducibly complex apparatuses to make and eject one type of webbing, but to make seven types is mind-boggling. An irreducibly complex apparatus is something that could not operate if even one of its components were missing. The chances of something of this nature to appear by accident with all of its necessary parts intact are essentially zero.

    This amazing material is five times stronger than steel thread, but it will stretch to over four times its length without breaking. 1 It has been used to make bulletproof vests, it can be used to close bleeding wounds, and scientists have produced nothing with which it can be compared. Furthermore, spiders have an amazing range of talents that for which they utilize their webs. Making a regular spider web is amazing enough. Many spiders make a complex web every day and eat it later as it starts to wear, after which they make a new web. How do they know how to produce such elaborate structures without instruction? It does not stop there. Harun Yahya has provided the following astonishing examples of how spiders use their webs and camouflage for hunting. 2

    Trapdoor spiders build a door with their webs and attach a web hinge to them so that they may close them and remain concealed until prey comes along. Did this happen by chance, and how did it get to be a trait of all trapdoor spiders? Bola spiders make a bola out of their webs and even put small weights on them. They are quite accurate too. They wait until a moth flies by, then they throw this bola like a lasso with great accuracy and reel in their prey. I had to practice a while with my bola from Argentina in order to get reasonably good with it. The bola spider did not have to practice. He would have starved to death if he did have to do so. This could not be accounted for by evolutionary theory. The same question could be asked about Dinopsis spiders. These amazing spiders make nets out of their webs that they throw over their prey. Their mothers are not around to teach them how to do this. How does such a skill evolve?

    Even more amazing are bell spiders. The bell spider makes a diving bell out of its web and actually uses it to hunt under water. How did this entire species figure out how to do this if their creator had not implanted in them the knowledge required?

    There is a species of spiders called Myrmarachne that look almost like ants, except for having eight legs. They will stand around waving their two extra legs in the air to resemble antennae until an ant comes close so that they can pounce on them. How did such a small creature end up looking like an ant, and with their minute brains how do they know how to utilize this resemblance so ingeniously?

    There are a number of spider kinds that surf the sky as babies. These kinds of spiders will spin a thin strand of web and leap into the wind where they can sometimes be carried thousands of feet into the air and for hundreds of miles. They are able to hang on to their threads and ride them like air surfboards. Scientists have spotted baby spiders as high as 16,000 feet in the air. This explains why spiders are often one of the first creatures to inhabit volcanic islands. How did they learn this skill on their own? 3 A very lengthy book could be written on the miraculous nature of spiders, but I’ll stop here for now. Spiders are amazingly sophisticated creations, and give us many reasons to stand in awe of God’s creativity.

    Oddly, one of Kent Hovind’s video debates was against a woman professor from Augusta University whose area of expertise was, of all things, spiders. All of this incredible evidence lay before her, and she was probably aware of all of it (I say probably because she was an incompetent scientist even by evolutionist standards), so she should have known better than anyone that spiders are evidence of intelligent design. In spite of this, she defended a nonsensical and irrational theory called the theory of evolution.

    It was, however, clear that her hatred for God’s people overruled any standards of scientific objectivity that she might have had. Her hatred and hostility toward Christianity and Christian values were not hidden during the debate. Perhaps, she likened herself to a venomous spider, but if she did it was very weak venom, because it failed to even make her intended victim flinch, let alone wound him. Much, or most, of her life was spent studying creatures that make evolutionists look stupid in more ways than she could have counted, but she chooses to remain stupid. What a sad and wasted life!

    Comment by Thyran | July 30, 2009

  114. Evolution and Christianity Mix like Oil and Water
    Written by:

    Francis Bacon and most of the founders of modern science could not replace faith in Christ. They realized that without an acknowledgement of God, the present could not be adequately explained. Furthermore, these outstanding scientists had confidence to proceed with scientific inquiry because of their knowledge that an orderly universe had to have a designer. This trust in the existence of a personal God, who fashioned an intricate, interwoven universe, provided the foundation to proceed with scientific inquiry.

    Today’s intellectuals have lost this foundational understanding of the purpose of science. The very definition of ‘science’ has been altered from “acknowledge truths and laws, especially as demonstrated by induction, experiment, or observation” (1934 edition of Webster’s New School dictionary) to “knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena”(1983 of Webster’s Collegiate dictionary). This definition removes the idea that “truth” exists and emphasizes natural phenomena. By this modern definition God’s intervention cannot even be considered because science has been defined to exclude this possibility.

    Truth operates regardless of the opinions of man just as gravity will operate regardless of belief, understanding, or interpretation. If the universe and mankind are direct creations of a personally involved God, then man’s interpretations do not diminish the truth of creation.

    The reason that the evidence for creation is not commonly known is because our public school system has become increasingly dominated by the philosophy of humanism. The very basis of humanism is that man, not God, is the center and measure of all things. Evolution serves as the primary justification for this belief system. Thus evolution is presented as fact in the public school system and only evidence supporting this concept is shown to the students. Yet, evolution stands in sharp opposition to a Biblical world view in the following way:

    1. The bible states repeatedly that life produces only after its own kind. This is certainly true as we observe the biological world around us. Dogs stay dogs, people stay people. Yet evolution preaches that all life is a blurred continuum.
    2. The God of the Bible demands unselfish sacrifice for the good of others. “. . . whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.” (Matthew 20:27)
    3. Would this same God use a system of dead ends, extinctions, and survival of the fittest to make us ?
    4. Belief in evolution justified the excesses of the industrial revolution, the Nazi elimination of the Jews, and the rise of Marxism and Communism. It also serves as the justification for the disbelief in God. Although modern evolutionists try to distance themselves from the consequences of taking their theory into a social realm, these historical atrocities are the result of taking evolutionary philosophy to its logical conclusion. If we are a product of biological forces why not extend these forces into our own dealings with other humans? Animal groups do not lament wiping each other out in order to survive. Why shouldn’t we do the same if we are just part of an evolutionary process that formed us? Creation is the event that ultimately gives us life value because it links every human’s values to their Creator who loved him enough to die for him.

    There is abundant scientific evidence that macro-evolution has never taken place. The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals; the chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural process; and there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which contradicts evolution. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientific observations whose influence has been a detriment to society and true scientific advancement.

    Comment by Thyran | July 30, 2009

  115. Evolution Is Based On Modern Myths
    Written by: Dave Nutting

    There is a preponderance of scientific evidence to support creation as the correct explanation for our existence. The misconception that evolution is science while creation is religion is propagated by a variety of “myths” surrounding the evidence for evolution.

    Myth:

    Our universe is the result of explosive expansion of the “Cosmic Egg” billions of years ago.

    Reality:

    This just ignores the bigger question-who laid the “cosmic egg”? The first law of thermodynamics proves that matter and energy cannot just appear. Evolutionists must ignore the most basic law of science at the very start of their belief system. Furthermore, explosions do not result in increased organization of matter. Has an explosion ever created ordered complexity?

    Myth:

    The fossil record proves evolution.

    Reality:

    There are no transitions between vastly different types of animals in either the living world or the fossil record. Lining up three objects by size or shape does not prove that one turned into the other.

    Myth:

    Structural and biochemical similarities prove common ancestry.

    Reality:

    The lack of fossil transition strongly refute this myth. Common ancestry is only one of two possible explanations for similarities. Purposeful design can explain the same features in a more direct way. In addition, totally different organisms often display similar features. This supports the existence of a common designer.

    Myth:

    The rock layers of the earth form the pages of earth’s history showing million of years of evolutionary progression.

    Reality:

    The fossil record does not show a clear “simple-to-complex” progression of life forms. Life is complex and well developed wherever it is found in the fossil record. Major groups of plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record, with nothing leading up to them. Most rock layers and the fossils they contain can be explained better by a worldwide flood and subsequent events.

    Myth:

    Radiometric dating methods are “absolute.” They are accurate and reliable.

    Reality:

    Although radiometric dating methods seem to show a trend of great age, these methods depend upon numerous other assumptions. When used to date events of known age, such as lava flow in Hawaii or the Grand Canyon, they have been wrong by orders of magnitude. How can we be sure they are accurate for events of unknown age? Furthermore, the vast majority of dating method indicate a very young earth.

    Myth:

    The human body contains many “vestigial organs” , leftovers from our evolutionary development.

    Reality:

    Although at one time there were dozens of features of the human body listed as vestigial, most have been shown to have important functions. After all, even if a few parts have lost their original function that does not prove evolution. To demonstrate evolution, you need to show the development of completely new structures, not the loss and degeneration of previous characteristics.

    Myth:

    The fossil record for human evolution is complete and clear.

    Reality:

    All too often the propagandists for evolution present their story with statements such as, “Every knowing person believes that man descended from apes. Today there is no such thing as the theory of evolution, it is the fact of evolution.” (Ernst Mayr) The evidence for human evolution is fragmentary and reconstruction involves artistic license. Many competent scientists totally reject evolution. They acknowledge that it is not even a good scientific theory, much less a fact.

    This is a condensation of an article by Dave Nutting of Alpha Omega Institute. Alpha Omega is a non-profit creation education organization in Colorado and can be reached at http://www.discovercreation.org. A complete set of articles examining science and reality from a Christian perspective can be found at http://www.SearchfortheTruth.org.

    Comment by Thyran | July 30, 2009

  116. Exodus 20:11 (King James Version)

    11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    Comment by Thyran | July 30, 2009

  117. Thyran (#100):

    At the beginning of your comment you said something about continents not being floating islands and then saying that the Bible says something about this. The reference I’ve seen young-Earth creationists use for this is Genesis 1:25, which says, “To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided, and his brother’s name was Joktan” (ESV). Most commentators say that this is a reference to the Tower of Babel, not to plate tectonics. Is there another passage you have in mind?

    I’m not going to get into peppered moths (an interesting story, but nowhere near being anything like speciation) or Ida (overblown in the media). Some old-Earth creationists fully accept evolution, others only partially, others not at all. It isn’t my specialty. I will say this: the sedimentary rock record contains the history of life on Earth, and it is better explained by a process where one form of life replaces another over time than by a catastrophic flood. Remember: the Bible does not say that Noah’s flood laid down the sedimentary rocks!

    I commented on carbon-14 in diamonds back in comment #72. We have more sensitive instruments now and can measure extremely tiny amounts of various isotopes. The C-14 in diamonds is likely to be caused by nuclear reactions caused by neutrons from surrounding radioactive minerals. It is not a proof of a young Earth.

    You said: “how can you say he is dead wrong on most of his theories when you yourself havent even heard a 100th of them?” I am very familiar with young-Earth Biblical and scientific arguments for a young-Earth. I haven’t watched all of Hovind’s videos, but have watched enough of them to know that he uses all of these arguments, plus a number of arguments that have been abandoned or never used by organizations such as AiG and ICR because they simply do not work. I don’t know why you are so intent on defending Hovind’s bad arguments in defense of Christianity or the inerrant Word of God.

    ======================================

    (#105):

    You said: “if i have to hear you talk about moon dust once more to prove creation doesnt exist i think i will vomit.”

    It isn’t just moon dust. Here’s a partial list of Hovind’s bad arguments for the age of the Earth:
    –Sea salts prove the Earth is young.
    –Earth’s magnetic field is decaying, proving it is young.
    –Erosion rates prove Earth is young.
    –The sun is shrinking, so this proves the Earth is young.
    –Moon dust proves the moon is young.
    –Helium accumulation rates in the atmosphere prove Earth is young.
    –Short term comets prove the the solar system is young.
    –The absence of fossil meteorites proves the Earth is young.
    –The receding Moon proves Earth is young.
    –Saturn’s rings prove the solar system is young.
    –Jupiter’s cooling rate proves it is young.

    Each of these is as bad as Hovind’s moon dust argument.

    Here’s a good analysis of these arguments, and then some: How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? A Close Look at Dr. Hovind’s List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims

    There is nothing unbiblical or slanderous about saying that Hovind is wrong about these things.

    ===========================================

    (#106)

    That granitic continents (density = 2.7 g/cm3) would float on the ultramafic (Fe and Mg rich) mantle (density = 3.3 g/cm3) is simple physics. Due to high pressure, the rocks of the mantle (or more specifically, the asthenosphere) can flow like a dense putty. I’m not sure why you are opposed to plate tectonics. It is not a Biblical issue, and most young-Earth creationists accept plate tectonics.

    ============================================

    (#107)

    I commented on the book Ultimate Proof in comment #91.

    ===============================================

    (#108)

    I’m not advocating the gap theory, and few old-Earth creationists do.

    ==============================================

    (#109)

    I’m not arguing for or against evolution, but against Hovind’s bad geology.

    ================================================

    (#111-115)

    Please stop with the long quotes from others.

    Nothing in these quotes supports Hovind’s bad arguments for the age of the Earth or other geological features.

    ================================================

    (#116)
    The seven day pattern in Exodus 20:11 is used as a pattern for:
    –Our seven day week
    –The sabbatical year
    –The year of Jubilee

    It doesn’t have to be a literal human day.

    Comment by geochristian | July 30, 2009

  118. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    it does describe a seven day week yes but it also says

    For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them

    any scriptures out there to prove that a day is millions of years old no? so why assume they are and make that your truth?

    makes no sense

    Comment by Thyran | July 30, 2009

  119. in fact Hovinds usage of some incorrect science is more believable

    Comment by Thyran | July 30, 2009

  120. Thyran (#118):

    I addressed the meaning of “day” back in comment #79. My objective is not to show that a “day” means “millions of years.” I think that it can be shown, however, that there are things in the text itself that indicate that God did not intend us to take Genesis 1-2 or other passages as requiring a literal six-day creation only 6,000 years ago. Most conservative Biblical scholarship is on my side on this argument, not on that of the young-Earth creationists.

    ============================

    (#119):

    So, are you saying that it doesn’t really matter if Hovind is right? Is it OK for him to use really bad arguments, even if these bad arguments needlessly drive scientists away from Christ?

    My concern is the gospel and evangelism. As I said before, Hovind and other young-Earth creationists are not my enemies. We have much in common—believing that people need a savior, that Christ is the Son of God and Savior, that the Bible is the Word of God. But to many, Hovind’s arguments are a barrier to the gospel rather than being a gateway, and of this he needs to repent.

    Comment by geochristian | July 30, 2009

  121. Thyran, I’m trying to touch on most of your issues very briefly here. But, with you posting multiple postings on widely scattered topics, I may miss or condense some.

    You think “floating continents” is ridiculous?
    Go over to Answers In Genesis – they have all sorts of information about how the continents move around, how they were joined together in the past, how they’ve collided in the past, and a dozen other details about moving and floating. If you think it is so ridiculous to have “floating continents”, go over to AiG and yell at them.

    Hovind’s moon dust theory is wrong; AiG used to use it, but they finally recognized that it was scientifically false, and dropped it. But, Hovind still uses it – he ignores that it is false, and still uses it.

    Yes, there have been frauds in the history of science. People are fallen and that will happen. Those instances of fraud don’t mean the entire body of science is wrong.

    As far as Hovind being wrong on most of his science, in the last several months that this thread has been going on, I’ve gotten more familiar with Hovind, reading three MORE of his books. Since he seemed to be repeating points that I had heard from AiG and the videos of his that I watched, I think I can fairly safely say I have know most of his points. While there are a couple points that are vaguely defensible, the vast majority are either false or huge misunderstandings. That’s not slander – I am familiar with most of his reasons, and most of them are wrong. See, no slander.

    As far as AiG’s website goes – I don’t expect you to trust what I say, and so when possible I try to point to “authorities”. AiG isn’t wrong on everything on their website – they have some accurate scientific facts stated (and many wrong ones). When AiG agrees with me that Hovind is wrong (moon dust) and that you are wrong (not believing floating continents) I will point you to AiG. Maybe you’ll believe them even if you don’t trust me.

    Ida was a media sensation, and the media wildly blew statements out of proportion. That’s what the media does. The studies weren’t making all the fantastic claims, the media and a couple scientists who like to be heard in the media were making the fuss.

    As far as the AiG “Successful Predictions” page goes:
    1) Yes, the magnetic field is currently decaying. In the past it has strengthened. It’s a cyclical thing – it goes up and down. Right NOW it is weakening. They’re pure wrong that it has always weakened.
    2) There are a LOT of problems with the RATE study. This blog is way too limited to discuss them all. RATE’s Helium-in-Zircon study had a LOT of problems, though.
    3) Radiohalos – there are a lot of problems with that too. Again, this blog is too short, but the AiG explanation of radiohalos require God to have worked a miracle for the halos to exist. AiG states it prominently – accelerated decay. Anyway, radiohalos work just fine for old earth scientists using regular natural laws to happen.
    4) (careful, you can’t believe this one if you think floating continents are nonsense – this one requires the “silly” floating continents) AiG misstates what the study expected. The “old earth” scientists EXPECTED to find chunks of “cold material” in the mantle. The cold material doesn’t prove or disprove either a young or old earth. http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/1735 (that’s a link to the LANL release that did the study)
    5) Again, AiG talks about the reversing magnetic fields as if it disproves an old earth. It doesn’t. An old earth is just fine with reversing magnetic fields. It doesn’t prove one way or the other.

    I’ve been a part of this conversation for quite a while. I’m not responding FOR GeoChristian, but I agree with his points. As far as him saying “some” or “every” – he didn’t say either. If you understand grammar though, his sentences mean “some” Christians are turned away.

    I haven’t read “Ultimate Proof”, but it is most likely a re-statement of the already-made arguments common from AiG. We’ve covered many of them so far – all flawed. I’m sure there are some in “Ultimate Proof” that we haven’t mentioned, and if you want to bring them up, we can take a look at them and see how they stand up.

    For Scripture reasons you brought up:
    1 Cor 15:21-22 is talking about the death of our souls and separation from God through sin. Same thing for Romans 5:12. Christ rescues us from death, but our bodies still die. Physical death isn’t what Christ is rescuing us from, and physical death isn’t what Paul is talking about.

    Exodus 20 is using creation as a pattern. The same pattern is seen when God orders a pattern of rest for the land – 6 YEARS on and the 7th YEAR off. God even uses it for the year of Jubilee – based on 7 Sabbaths of 7 YEARS, land was to revert owners.

    God used the creation account as a general pattern for the week; this isn’t a specific statement of how many 24-hour periods took place in the creation.

    Comment by WebMonk | July 30, 2009

  122. Great. While I try to put in a thought-through response. Thyran does a massive copy and paste blitz of posts. Thyran, …

    Oh never mind. You wouldn’t understand anyway.

    Comment by WebMonk | July 30, 2009

  123. GeoChristian, it is pretty standard practice to remove comments that are nothing more than giant copy-paste entries.

    I’ll continue the thought I started before, Thyran. There’s a thing called etiquette. To put it in small words, it’s means “not behaving rudely”. Going out and finding a bunch of copy-paste things and posting a whole bunch of them one right after the other is a really rude thing to do.

    It shows that you can’t summarize things, it suggests you might not understand the things you are copy-pasting, it takes up FAR too much time to read through, it is impossible to respond to them because you can copy-paste much faster than others can type responses, the person who makes those types of posts is generally considered a “troll”, etc, etc, etc.

    In many blogs and message boards on the Internet, someone who does that is banned, and the posts are removed. Geo seems to be pretty forgiving about this issue, and it’s his blog to do with as he pleases.

    This is just on the vague hope you might understand and try to follow common rules of etiquette and decency while posting. I haven’t seen any evidence of it yet, and I admit I now regret responding. A few weeks ago I thought it was pointless to converse with you, but the impression faded over time. It is now, once again, firmly in place.

    Comment by WebMonk | July 30, 2009

  124. WebMonk: I have been patient because I haven’t had a whole lot of problems with copy and paste in the past.

    Thyran: Virtually no one reads long quotes in blog comments. I skim through them here, being that it is my blog, but when reading others’ blogs I generally skip them. Short quotes are OK if they directly relate to the post. The topic here is Dr. Dino and whether or not his teachings on creation are correct (or his imprisonment and tax problems).

    Comment by geochristian | July 30, 2009

  125. Read 2 Tim 2:14

    Comment by Maggie, South Africa | August 2, 2009

  126. “Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.” — 2 Tim 2:14 ESV

    Maggie: Thanks for your comment.

    Comment by geochristian | August 2, 2009

  127. Q: What were the accusations against Dr. Hovind and what was his defense?

    A:
    1.Failure to withhold employee-related taxes:

    Explanation:
    From the start of the ministry, Dr. Hovind sought legal counsel on the proper way to compensate those who would serve with him in the ministry. He was told by several attorneys that as a 508 organization, CSE was not required to withhold taxes and that each person serving would be responsible for paying their own income taxes. For seventeen years the ministry operated without incident, and no notice was ever given to CSE or Dr. Hovind that the IRS wanted any changes made on this issue until the day the charges were brought.

    2.Structuring cash transactions in order to evade bank reporting requirements:

    Explanation:
    Up until 2003, CSE withdrew cash in order to compensate those who served at CSE. There was no knowledge of bank secrecy laws and never any intention of evading Internal Revenue Service regulations.

    3.Threatening and impeding the investigation of a government agency:

    Explanation:
    Because Dr. Hovind filed papers questioning actions of the IRS, which was his legal right, he was charged with “impeding” the agency. They also believed he “threatened agents with bodily harm” by praying for those involved on public radio.

    Comment by Thyran | August 5, 2009

  128. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. 2 Timothy 4:3-4

    IT IS CLEAR THAT TIME IS NOW

    Comment by Thyran | August 5, 2009

  129. I MUST APOLOGISE FOR THE RECENT APPARENT BOMBARDMENT OF SCIENTIFICAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED ABOVE PROVING THE EARTH IS NOT MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD

    IM SURE YOU WERE SHOCKED BY IT AS I CAN SEE BY THE COMMENTS ABOVE

    THANKS WEBMONK FOR YOUR CONCERNS OVER THE ISSUE I WASNT AWARE ONCE AGAIN THAT GEOCHRISTIAN NEEDED YOU TO TALK FOR HIM IT SEEMS THIS IS THE CASE THROUGHOUT THREFORE IN ALL MY FUTURE POSTS I WILL ADDRESS IT TO THE BOTH OF YOU SINCE YOU TWO ARE JOINED AT THE HIP

    I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A DIFFERENT APPROACH INSTEAD O ME PROVING TO YOU THAT THE EARTH IS NOT MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD AS I HAVE DONE COUNTLESS TIMES ABOVE

    I CHALLENGE GOECHRISTIAN AND WEBMONK TO PLEASE PROVE TO ME USING SCIENTIFICAL EVIDENCE AND SCRIPTURE TO BACK UP THEIR THEORIES THAT EVOLUTION EXISTS AND THAT THE EARTH IS MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD

    LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE

    Comment by Thyran | August 5, 2009

  130. [Long quote deleted by GeoChristian]

    Comment by Thyran | August 5, 2009

  131. Thyran: (#127):

    “Dr. Hovind sought legal counsel on the proper way to compensate those who would serve with him in the ministry.” — Mr. (not Dr.) Hovind may have gotten tax advice, but he got it from the wrong people. The administration of Pensacola Christian College (about as fundamentalist and creationist as one can get) recognized that his tax practices were shady and prohibited their students from working there. This was years before any charges were filed. Employees of non-profit organizations (including Hovind) are required to pay taxes. Period.

    “No knowledge of bank secrecy laws.” — It is fairly common knowledge that banks have to report transactions involving more than $10,000 in cash, and the pattern of withdrawals indicates that Hovind was intentionally avoiding this.

    ———————————-

    (#128):

    I believe in a real creation by a real God, in a real Adam in a real garden, in a real sin with real consequences, and in Jesus Christ as the only solution for that sin. I also believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

    In addition, I believe that young-Earth creationist organizations have read a lot of things into those Scriptures that simply are not there.

    Other than my final statement—which most would consider to be of secondary importance compared to the rest of what I said—what would you classify as “turning away from the truth?”

    Or are we back to considering me a “so called Christian” because I accept an old Earth? Does the doctrine of young-Earth creationism take precedence over the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone?

    ———————————-

    (#129):

    Very few of the long quotes you gave above said anything about the age of the Earth (they were mostly about biological evolution), and those that did proved absolutely nothing.

    WebMonk is free, like anyone else, to comment on anything that anyone says. That is how blogs work.

    I need to write a new post explaining how the Bible does not require a young Earth. I’ve touched on the issue throughout these comments, but not brought it all together in one place. If the Bible does not require a young Earth, then it is no longer a theological/Biblical issue, but solely a scientific issue. I’ll summarize my thoughts:
    –“In the beginning” in Genesis 1:1 is not necessarily tied to the six days of creation. It could be a summary of the whole six days, or an event in the undated past.
    –The days of creation have an amazing correlation to the 4.5 billion years of Earth history as understood by geologists. See Day-age time chart.
    –The word “day” is used in a non-literal sense at least once in the opening passage of Genesis. Genesis 2:4 says, “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” (ESV). Here, “day” refers to the entire passage.
    –The days of Genesis 1 are used as a pattern not only for the seven-day week, but also for the sabbatical year and year of jubilee.

    There is more. I’ll write about it separately

    The scientific evidence for an old Earth is vast, and the evidence provided by the YECs fails miserably (see the arguments about sea salts or moon dust above, or read some of my Six bad arguments from Answers in Genesis series.

    Biological evolution is a separate issue from the age of the Earth.

    Comment by geochristian | August 5, 2009

  132. Wonderful. Now you’re posting in all caps. Since you seem to be ignorant of basic Internet politeness, I should let you know that all caps writing is another crass thing to do.

    This comment string has listed dozens of things that point to an old earth in geology, astronomy, radiometric dating, etc. Just go back through some of our previous posts.
    – Stars from billions of light years away visible today.
    – Intricate patterns of radioactive decay products that are just what we would see from billions of years.
    – Fossils that look exactly like they have been laid down over long periods of time and do not look like were laid down by a flood.
    – Geologic structures that match an old earth but don’t match a global flood.
    – Star formation that takes millions of years to happen, and yet we see stars in all different states of burning and being born, just what we would see if the universe is billions of years old.

    The list can go on.

    Start responding to the points we brought up. I replied to a lot of the posts you put up that “proved” the earth is young and showed why those are false reasons. Geo responded to other things in the same way. But you never respond back on any of these things. If you won’t bother to respond, it’s pointless to continue talking.

    Beyond that, you don’t seem to understand those things you copy and pasted. You need to start understanding the science you keep asking for.

    Example 1: EVEN Hovind realizes the continents were all joined together and have moved apart from an original single mass, and yet you know so little about geology that you laugh at the idea and call it ridiculous!

    Example 2: You think tides and the moon receding was ridiculous, and yet EVEN AiG know about it and talks about it.

    Example 3: You STILL have no idea what the issue with moon dust is even though Hovind, AiG, and I have all explained it many times.

    Learn what the science means and come to understand it. Copy-pasting big chunks of other people’s words merely indicates that you don’t really understand what they are saying. If you don’t understand “simple” things like continental drift (“floating continents” as you mock it) how can you possibly understand radioactive decay chains? And if you don’t understand something, how can you have a meaningful conversation about it? And if you can’t have a meaningful discussion, what is the point of posting?

    Comment by WebMonk | August 5, 2009

  133. Whoops. I was doing something else and I took too long responding, and Geo beat me to it. My comment was in response to 129.

    Comment by WebMonk | August 5, 2009

  134. Beware of people who say they believe the bible but really only believe what they want. Beware of people who use circular reasoning by saying that so-and-so believes so you should too. Beware of people who have double standards.
    There are a lot of Christian teachers and preachers that I love but not one of them is perfect in their theology or sinless in their personal life. Everyone has blind spots. Dr. or Mr. Hovind is a well reasoned teacher and makes sense to me when he speaks on science and biblical creationism. I think he’s wrong about the tax thing. Walter Martin was a great thinker and speaker but even he had his blind spots. I love Dr J Vernon Magee. He’s one of my fave’s but he has his blind spots.
    The bible says God made the heavens and the earth in 6 ‘yom’s which always mean a literal 24 hour period when used with a modifier. Imagine this: and the evening and the morning was the third eon. It’s dumb. you can’t have millions of years of photosynthesis without light. Why can’t we just believe God? Also, let’s use the most accurate version we can get. He who likes to argue will continue to argue.
    By the way, when he was speaking about his theory he stated it was a theory and could be proved wrong. Bye bye, Gary

    Comment by Gary | August 16, 2009

  135. Gary:

    Thanks for your comment. I agree that we should be cautious and dig deeply into the Scriptures, and that even then we can go astray if our starting point is wrong. Here’s a few comments about what you said about the Biblical teaching on creation:

    –The idea that if “yom” is used with a modifier it must mean a literal 24-hour day is not a rule of Hebrew grammar. It is a recent invention by someone who wanted to push the literal 24-hour day interpretation. At least that is my understanding.

    –Photosynthesis needs light; it doesn’t need the sun. Light was created before vegetation. In the day-age interpretation (which I’m not necessarily endorsing), photosynthesis could have occurred on the early Earth even though the sun had not appeared in the sky, not because the sun didn’t exist but because it was veiled by Earth’s opaque atmosphere.

    –Use the most accurate version we can get? I use the ESV for my regular reading, but for once the KJV gets Gen 7:20 better.

    ESV: The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

    KJV: Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

    According to the text, the flood didn’t have to cover 20,000 foot tall mountain ranges; it may have been only 20-25 feet deep. We could take this a step further and translate “mountains” as “hills,” which is perfectly legitimate. With this understanding of the text, the flood was 15 cubits deep (still a rather incredible flood) that covered low-lying hills in the Mesopotamian plain. I’m not “believing what I want to believe” here; I’m just reading the Bible.

    With respect for all who love the Word of God,

    Kevin N

    Comment by geochristian | August 17, 2009

  136. Beware of anyone who cleverly casts doubt on God or his word. Words mean things. Morning means morning. Evening means evening. Day means day. God says what he means and he means what he says. God called the light he created on the first day “day”. Then he called the darkness “night”. You can’t have eons of day, then eons of night. It’s stupid. Let God be true and every man a liar. Is it hard to kick against the goads (or even the pricks)? I wish you were only hurting yourself. Gary

    Comment by Gary | August 18, 2009

  137. I wish Dr. Dino were only hurting himself. Bad apologetics drives people away from Christ.

    Comment by geochristian | August 18, 2009

  138. WEBMONK

    YOU LISTED RADIOMETRIC DATING AND STAR CONSTILLATIONS AS YOUR SCIENTIFICAL PROOF OF AN OLD EARTH LOL I NOW KNOW TO DISREGARD ANYTHING YOU SAY SINCE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF SCIENCE AND WISH TO SUPPORT METHODS OF DATING WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVEN ON COUNTLESS TIMES TO BE INNACURATE :) PLEASE ALSO EXPLAIN HOW YOU CAME TO THE UNDERSTANDING THAT STAR CONSTILLATIONS ARE BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD

    REGARDING YOUR FOSSILS LOL NO DOUBT SOME ARE LYING IN AREAS WHERE THEYU SHOULD BE BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FOSSILS THAT SUPPORTS THE FLOOD?

    I LEAVE YOU WITH A COUPLE OF RESOURCES TO GO AN EDUCATE YOURSELF PLEASE DONT RESPOND UNLESS YOU CAN BACK UP YOUR THEORY OF EVOLUTION WITH SCIENCE AND NOT THEORIES

    AND BY THE WAY YOUR THEORY OF FLOATING CONTINENTS IS RIDICULOUS AND IT DOES NOT SUPPORT WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS US. YOU ALSO MAKE THE CLAIM THAT HOVIND SUPPORTS THIS PLEASE INDICATE IN WHICH RESOURCE.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/evolution-anti-science

    http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/02/18/evolutionist-turned-creationist/

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

    THE CAPS USAGE WAS JUST FOR YOU :) HAVE A GREAT DAY

    GEOCHRISTIAN AND WEBMONK

    IF YOU ARE BIBLE BELIEVERS AND ARE READING FROM THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE I HAVE ASKED YOU TO PLEASE INDICATE WHY YOU THINK WHEN GOD SAID HE CREATED THE EARTH IN SIX DAYS THAT IT DOES NOT MEAN HE CREATED IT IN SIX DAYS?

    I HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN EXPLANATION THAT:
    I cannot show you a verse in the Bible that says the Earth is millions or billions of years old. I will stick to “In the beginning…” being in the unspecified past, just as the Bible itself does.

    THIS IS YOUR BIBLICAL PROOF?

    IM AMAZED THAT NEITHER OF YOU UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF BEGINNNING AS IF THOUGH THERE IS A PAST IN THE BEGINNING

    VERY AMMUSING

    AND BY THE WAY JUST SO YOU KNOW A VERY LARGE MAJORITY OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY SUPPORTS CREATION AND A YOUNG EARTH THE SMALL MINORITY SUCH AS YOURSELVES HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED INTO THE EVOLUTIONISM WHICH IN CASE YOU DIDNT KNOW IS STILL JUST A THEORY AND HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN.

    AND REGARDING THIS BLOG AND HOVINDS NAME BEING DRAGGED THEROUGH THE DIRT

    YES HE HAS USED SOME SCIENCE BEFORE WHERE TODAY WE KNOW THAT THEY CANNOT BE SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE… BUT AGAIN HERE WE ARE ATTACKING HOVIND FOR APPARENTLY BEING MISLEADING BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE DOES HAVE THOUSANDS OF OTHER SCIENTIFICAL FACTS TO PROVE A YOUNG EARTH AND CREATION THAT YOU HAVENT EVEN TOUCHED YET?

    YOU THINK YOU KNOW HIS CASE ABOUT THE TAX SITUATION WHICH IS HIGHLY AMAZING SINCE ALL THE FACTS YOU HAVE USED ARE FROM ILLIGITMATE CLAIMS FROM WEBSITES THAT ALSO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HIS CASE?

    IT SEEMS THIS BLOG IS FULL OF IGNORANCE!

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp

    Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: ‘If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?’ The answer from this scholar? ‘Absolutely not!’

    For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. 2 Timothy 4:3-4

    Comment by Thyran | August 19, 2009

  139. I don’t know nothing ’bout bathliths or what have you but after reading most of your comments, it strikes me as familiar. Something like “Has God REALLY said…” when it comes to trying to figure out things. Eve got in trouble for believing she could tell better than God. Has God REALLY said 6 days? Couldn’t he have meant 6 million years? Hmmmm… So familiar…

    Comment by ani | August 20, 2009

  140. Ani:

    Thanks for your comment.

    The “has God really said?” argument cuts both ways. The young-Earth creationists have plenty of teachings that go way beyond anything in the Bible, and yet are held with dogmatic zeal. Some examples are:

    –No animal death before the fall. Has God said this? No.

    –All fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks were deposited by the flood. Has God said this? No.

    –Dinosaurs and humans lived together. Has God said this? No. (Again, let’s save this discussion for later; I don’t buy the Leviathan/Behemoth argument, and neither do most conservative Old Testament scholars).

    –No possibility for biological evolution. Has God said this? No. (The trend among young-Earth creationists now is to advocate super-rapid speciation in the centuries after the flood, but to deny that it could happen over longer periods of time. Go figure.)

    I could list more.

    With respect,
    Kevin N

    Comment by geochristian | August 21, 2009

  141. LOL

    No possibility for biological evolution. Has God said this? No.

    Has God said that there is a possibility of biological evolution NO! Go figure people who are confused about what God says should refer to the Bible instead of adopting theories to support their own passions

    And God did say this in 2 Timothy 4:3-4

    For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. 2 Timothy 4:3-4

    And whats even more amazing is the fact that the justification of your millions of years of an old earth is on the basis that God never meant he created everything in six days when He said He did??????

    Your reasoning is that there is an unprecdented past in the word beginnning LOL

    So what you can actually take from all this is that Geochristian doesnt support his theory from what the bible tells him and for what the meaning of the word begining is when God said beginning. No Geochristian is contending Gods word and telling him beginning doesnt mean beginning and days dont mean days they mean millions of years

    How can beginning have a past?

    LOL

    Science supports creation

    Evolution is a pagan myth

    Comment by Thyran | August 21, 2009

  142. Thyran:

    The Bible simply does not say anything at all that places limits on biological evolution. If God is silent about evolution, then it is a scientific issue, not a Biblical one.

    I’m not sure that you have understood what I said earlier about Genesis 1 and the age of the Earth, but I’ll give it one more try.

    –It is not clear that “In the beginning” is tied to day one. There was a beginning, but it may have occurred at some time before day one. I’m not saying, as you imply, that there was no beginning.

    –I’m not necessarily endorsing the day-age interpretation of Genesis 1, in which each “day” is an unspecified length of time (as in Genesis 2:4, and also as in Psalm 90, also written by Moses). There are things I like about the day-age interpretation, and it could be correct, but there are other old-Earth possibilities. One is the analogical day interpretation, in which each day of Genesis one is God’s work day, which is analogous to but not identical to our days.

    You cannot accuse me of “wandering off into myths” when I point out that many of the things taught by Mr. Hovind and other young-Earth creationists are not found in the Bible and are not sound scientifically.

    Comment by geochristian | August 21, 2009

  143. Thyran,
    Answers In Genesis supports a billions of years old stars and constellations: read “Starlight and Time” by Russell Humphreys, sold and promoted by Answers in Genesis.

    Hovind supports the moving continents:

    http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=20

    http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=76

    Here are the quotes from Hovind’s webpages:
    “Land movements during the ice age or subsequent melting of the ice cut off the connection between Australia and Asia effectively isolating the unique animal life to Australia.”
    (See that phrase “land movements” – it means continents drifting apart.)

    “The continents were not separated until 100-300 years after the Flood (Gen. 10:25). The people and animals had time to migrate anywhere on earth by then.”
    (See, Hovind says the continents were joined together and then were separated. They drifted apart.)

    Thyran, your lack of knowledge really has me on the ropes. I don’t know how to discuss these things with someone who doesn’t even know the basics like drifting continents and billions of light years. Those are REALLY basic things that everyone (at least I thought everyone) knows about, including Hovind and AiG. If you don’t know the basics, how can we discuss things like radiometric dating?

    We can’t. Education. Learn about things like those “floating continents” and billions of light-years you laugh at.

    Comment by WebMonk | August 22, 2009

  144. Look Kent Hovind was a tax orotester and the money changers police ( IRS- enforcers for the privately owned Federal Reserve)thought that thely could make an example of him. Yes he is guilty of seeing that the US constitution has beeen overturned to suit the bankers. The US constitution says that fiat is illlegal.

    Comment by dawkinswatch | August 28, 2009

  145. Dawkinswatch:

    Thanks for the comment. Here are a few quotes for you to think about, and a few questions:

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. — Sixteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution

    For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.Romans 13:6-7 (ESV)

    What is unconstitutional about income taxes?

    Should Paul have been a tax protester?

    Comment by geochristian | August 28, 2009

  146. Back to geology-

    Get over it geochristian. Uniformitarianism, like Darwinism, imposes an arrogant straitjacket of predjudice on the evidence. The following 1964 account is attributed to Sigurdur Thorarinsson, the official Icelandic geologist, regarding Surtsey Island. The latter is a volcanic Island that started popping up in 1963.

    “On Surtsey, only a few months sufficed for a landscape to be created which was so varied and mature that it was almost beyond belief. During the summer of 1964 and the following winter we not only had a lava dome with a glowing lava lake in a summit crater and red-hot lava flows rushing down the slopes, increasing the height of the dome and transforming the configuration of the island from one day to another. Here we could also see wide sandy beaches and precipitous crags lashed by the breakers of the sea. There were gravel banks and lagoons, impressive cliffs … There were hollows, glens and soft undulating land. There were fractures and faultscarps, channels and screes … You might come to a beach covered with flowing lava on its way to the sea with white balls of smoke rising high up in the air. Three weeks later you might come back to the same place and be literally confounded by what met your eye. Now, there were precipitous lava cliffs of considerable height, and below them you would see boulders worn by the surf, some of which were almost round, on an abrasion platform cut into the cliff, and further out there was a sandy beach where you could walk at low tide without getting wet.”

    Indeed, despite geochristians protestations to the contrary it seems geologists are increasingly aware that much geology can be best explained by catastrophic events, as David Raup of the Chicago Field Museum makes clear-

    “A great deal has changed, however, and contemporary geologists and paleontologists now generally accept catastrophe as a ‘way of life’ although they may avoid the word catastrophe… The periods of relative quiet contribute only a small part of the record. The days are almost gone when a geologist looks at such a sequence, measures its thickness, estimates the total amount of elapsed time, and then divides one by the other to compute the rate of deposition in centimeters per thousand years. The nineteenth century idea of uniformitarianism and gradualism still exist in popular treatments of geology, in some museum exhibits, and in lower level textbooks….one can hardly blame the creationists for having the idea that the conventional wisdom in geology is still a noncatastrophic one.” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin (Vol.54, March 1983), p.2 1

    Comment by Gary N. | September 6, 2009

  147. Gary:

    Geologists have moved away from the “one sand grain at a time” uniformitarianism of Lyell. They recognize that there are catastrophic events recorded in geologic history, such as meteor impacts, massive volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, landslides, debris flows, and floods. Each of these leaves its geologic fingerprint. Neither Thorarinsson nor Raup (nor other advocates of geologic catastrophes such as Luis Alvarez and Derek Ager) advocated anything beyond this.

    This is one of the problems with the either-or approach of modern young-Earth creationism. They present an 1830s version of uniformitarianism, point out problems with it, and then declare victory for their catastrophic flood model.

    As I’ve stated, the young Earth model is neither Biblically necessary nor scientifically sound. You need to take a look at my Six bad arguments from Answers in Genesis series for an analysis of some of the problems with young-Earth creationism, though this series only exposes the tip of the iceberg. I will be writing a series looking at Biblical problems with young-Earth creationism in the upcoming months.

    Comment by geochristian | September 6, 2009

  148. From what I understand Hovind for ten years made it clear that he was a religious organization and that he was not subject to paying taxes partially because of this and also because our tax system is like the other commentator put it was originally a type of volunteer-system.He said his organization worked with the State and also an accountant and that all was ok, up until they got apprehended. It seems he was set up. He also showed a way to legally bypass paying taxes.
    There is a movie called From Freedom to Fascism. Did any of you see it? It smacks the IRS right in the face.All sorts of people’s lives are ruined and it is because they simply did not have the money to get them out. Research what was done to Joe Lewis…
    Kent Hovind said he could drum up the money, however, it was said to be too late. Now, there is an attempt to run off the rest of the Hovinds from their Dino Adventure Land. I recall a video where Hovind made some sharp remarks against the IRS . This, plus his whole vision of a young earth and the evils of evolution is what got him in more trouble, I believe. Joe Lewis was taken for everything, but I dont think he was put in jail for ten years. Also, Celebrities like Redd Fox were convicted of tax evasion but did not serve much if any prison time.

    Comment by sergio lepore | September 7, 2009

  149. Sergio:

    Thanks for your comment.

    Religious organizations, like other non-profit organizations, do not pay taxes. Their employees, on the other hand, do pay taxes. I worked for a denominational ministry for six years and I had to file taxes and report my complete income, including salary, housing allowance, and other allowances. This is the issue. Hovind was trying to find ways around this, and violated the law in doing so. His whole thing about his employees being “volunteers” was downright silly as far as I can tell. Volunteers don’t get paid under the table.

    My understanding is that Hovind had plenty of warnings. This didn’t hit Hovind out of the blue. The whole process went on for over a decade, and Hovind didn’t change his ways. Pensacola Christian College (about as fundamentalist and creationist as you can get) told its students to not work for Hovind because of his shady tax-reporting procedures.

    Dino Adventure land isn’t being seized because Hovind preached against evolution, but because the government has no other way of collecting the back taxes owed.

    I have already stated that I believe Hovind’s sentence was extreme.

    Comment by geochristian | September 7, 2009

  150. Ok,let’s try to get out of this Kent Hovind=bad and US Gov. = good mentality. I don’t think you forget all those treaties which amounted to nothing but toilet paper as soon as the US Gov. saw it fit to depose of so many native American Indians countless of times throughout history . See what they did to Geronimo and look up the story of the Trail of Tears.
    If Kent or any other true radically-bred American felt his and his own was being threatened by a corrupt institution sure he is going to defend himself. He really believes in what he is doing. Hovind has been convicted of 58 federal indictments, some of which really amounts to him trying to defend himself. I think our Government is extremely silly, and especially of late. The 16th Ammendment to the Constitution is not even truely ratified, I think, so…

    Let’s see…what about Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Timothy Geithner, to name but three big government officials who are all tax evaders.
    Kent’s belongings belongs to the US Gov. while in reality the latter’s belongs to another group of ill-treated people i.e.the Native Americans, etc.

    I dont see any “real” Christians trying to take a Kent Hovind aside and assure him of some Christian brotherly love in matters of his perhaps over-the-top means to protect himself and what he believes. Christians are supposed to minister to one another before secular laws come into the matter. I know of only so many others abandoning Kent instead of trying to perhaps steer him in a lovingly way from what amounted to his current bad situation. It is like we aught to avoid a real soldier in his time of need. Hay, it sort of reminds me of how so many of our soldiers are poorly being treated stemming back to the Vietnam War, right up to today’s conflicts. We use em and then toss em aside to make us look as if We are clean of any blood.
    This is silly.

    Comment by sergio lepore | September 8, 2009

  151. Ken Ham is a better apologist than Kent Hovind. Didn’t Kent Hovind ignore that argument about the mammoths?

    youtube.com/thejesusfreak919

    Comment by clay | September 18, 2009

  152. Clay (#151):

    I agree, though I would word it differently: Ken Ham is not as bad of an apologist as Kent Hovind. AiG has its “Arguments we don’t use” page, but still has a lot of bad arguments that they do use.

    Comment by geochristian | September 21, 2009

  153. KJV Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exo 20:11 KJV)

    “made”

    6213 עָשָׂה `asah {aw-saw’}
    Meaning: 1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to do, work, make, produce 1a1a) to do 1a1b) to work 1a1c) to deal (with) 1a1d) to act, act with effect, effect 1a2) to make 1a2a) to make 1a2b) to produce 1a2c) to prepare 1a2d) to make (an offering) 1a2e) to attend to, put in order 1a2f) to observe, celebrate 1a2g) to acquire (property) 1a2h) to appoint, ordain, institute 1a2i) to bring about 1a2j) to use 1a2k) to spend, pass 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to be done 1b2) to be made 1b3) to be produced 1b4) to be offered 1b5) to be observed 1b6) to be used 1c) (Pual) to be made 2) (Piel) to press, squeeze
    Origin: a primitive root; TWOT – 1708,1709; v
    Usage: AV – do 1333, make 653, wrought 52, deal 52, commit 49, offer 49, execute 48, keep 48, shew 43, prepare 37, work 29, do so 21, perform 18, get 14, dress 13, maker 13, maintain 7, misc 154; 2633

    08804 Stem – Qal (See 08851) Mood – Perfect (See 08816) Count – 12562

    KJV Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    “created”

    1254 בּרא bara’ {baw-raw’}
    Meaning: 1) to create, shape, form 1a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject) 1a1) of heaven and earth 1a2) of individual man 1a3) of new conditions and circumstances 1a4) of transformations 1b) (Niphal) to be created 1b1) of heaven and earth 1b2) of birth 1b3) of something new 1b4) of miracles 1c) (Piel) 1c1) to cut down 1c2) to cut out 2) to be fat 2a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat
    Origin: a primitive root; TWOT – 278; v
    Usage: AV – create 42, creator 3, choose 2, make 2, cut down 2, dispatch 1, done 1, make fat 1; 54

    References: BibleWorks 8
    ________________________________________

    The universe and earth have always been old, even before the discoveries of Darwin. Just from the plain reading in English, there is no mention in Genesis 1 of a young universe, young earth. Genesis 1:1 addresses a past tense event and use of the word “created” [bara]; whereas, Exodus 20:11 uses the word “made” [asah]. Genesis 1:2 mentions a strange occurrence, wherein the earth had become without form and void, even full of darkness. Genesis 1:3 does not say God created light for the first time, but rather “Let there be light [in a world that became full of darkness].” The first day was called good (Genesis 1:4), but strangely, the second day was not (Genesis 1:8). Even the third day was called good (Genesis 1:10, 12); the fourth day was good (Genesis 1:18); the fifth day was good (Genesis 1:21); and the sixth day was good (Genesis 1:25). Then the Genesis 1 account states that the past six days were very good (Genesis 1:31); however, note that the text does not state that they were perfect.

    Even in Genesis 1, there are only 3 uses of the word “created” [bara] in the text (verses 1:1, 21, and 27), where God created [the universe from out of nothing or ex nihilo; a new creation of Adam came from dust; a new creation of “great” whales came from water (however, these 3 creations are separate and unique from the made formations)], everything else was remade [asah] after its kind [of a previous species] with preexisting materials from a time before the world we now live in; most likely, this pre-Adamic civilization consisted of angels under the rule of the original king of earth: Lucifer (reading Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 and using the interpretative rule of double reference).

    I could go on and on with my interpretation … for example, that Job 41 is addressing a type of Satan (Job 41:34), a fire-breathing dragon (Job 41:20-21) which can quite possibly be a seraph from the seraphim branch (consider the Dragon Kings from Chinese mythology that were able to shapeshift into human form; these had to be celestial beings), or a creature from the pre-Adamic civilization(s); that 2 Peter 3:5-6 is not about Noah’s flood, but of a flood much greater in content. However, I just wanted to point out that Kent Hovind should have read the above observations from simply reading the English language correctly, without need of a science background, and in that of his favorite translation: the KJV. In a way, I am hurt by the ministry of Kent Hovind, simply because *he lied* about a lot of material and misrepresented science; this partly contributed to my giving up science more than a decade in college and harassing my father, very badly at one time, over his teaching evolution in public schools as a life science teacher. (Looking back, I overcame those confusing times in college and years later obtained a BA in Philosophy and an MBA in Finance from U.S. government accredited schools (unlike Hovind); additionally, today, my father, a retiree, and I can talk comfortably about science without that ingrained notion by Hovind surfacing in my mind, from over a decade ago, that he was/is some kind of devil.) (Regarding evolution, I would like to add that there are certain accounts of evolution that are true, but I reject the notion that Adam evolved into a man from a common ancestor.) Sadly, Hovind’s last name has become a YouTube phenomenon and I hope that he repents of his worldview, through his son Eric, for it continues to harm Christianity as shown from the videos posted on YouTube.

    Thank you for reading.

    Comment by John Rambo | October 31, 2009

  154. People should run the other way when they see comments like these slagging Dr. Hovind, the majority of the disciples were martyred and suffered imprisonment. Eternity will validate most of what Hovind had to teach, and show him as a genuine Christian for eternity. Unfortunately for the person who made the comments on this chat site, I think if he makes it to heaven he will suffer humiliation for his noted comments. The Judge compared Hovinds actions to rapping a person, if you can’t tell from comments like that the issue is Character assasination and not justice than there is little reasoning that will convince you. Hovind had changed his habits prior to the suit being filed. And if this heavily indebted nation where truly interested in paying off some debt they could have retroactively got the money back from Hovinds ministry, like there aren’t enough, drug dealers, gangster and corporate whores committing genuine tax evasion that they couldn’t go after first, pleeease!!. Think about it numbskull, they wanted to discredit Hovind and character assasinate him, old Satan thinks he has scored a big one here, but watch and see, eternity has a way of separating the goats and the sheep. Better hope you aren’t the goats you Hovind band wagon bashers!!!

    Comment by Michael | November 5, 2009

  155. Michael:

    Thanks for your comment.

    Eternity will validate most of what Hovind had to teach, and show him as a genuine Christian for eternity.

    I am not questioning the genuineness of Hovind’s Christianity, but to equate him with the martyrs throughout church history is a bit of a stretch. The apostles were martyred (except John) for their unwavering faith in Christ. Hovind was imprisoned for tax evasion (and I have stated here that I thought his sentence seems extreme).

    On the other hand, I cannot see Hovind’s teaching on Creation being vindicated, either in this life or in eternity. It just doesn’t square with nature (even other young-Earth creationists agree with me on this one), nor is it Biblically necessary.

    Comment by geochristian | November 5, 2009

  156. I have examined much of Hovinds materials and source materials like Gentry’s book and much of Henry Morris’s materials, if it is extreme to you then perhaps truth is extreme to you, the bible clearly states few will tolerate sound doctrine in the end times. Hovind’s only true fault is that he should have just set up to pay taxes from the beginning, your quotes from the Bible about taxes are not necessarily wrong, but read your own constitution and see that income taxes were started as a one time thing to fund wars and ask yourself if Hovind’s reasoning is completely wrong, your founding forefathers would have agreed with him and gone to war over an issue like this, not to say in anyway I advocate war as it is only a biblical spiritual war that the Bible advocates us to partake in.

    Hovind is just so far above most in work habit, intellect and spiritual belief that he is an offense to the intellectually lazy Christian who has no idea evolution is a farce and totally discredited except by those on tenure and who have a vested interested in keeping the populace fat and dumb on Bread and Circuses.

    Comment by Michael | November 6, 2009

  157. Michael:

    “the bible clearly states few will tolerate sound doctrine in the end times.”

    This is true. As I’ve stated many times, I believe in a real creation by the triune God, in a real Adam committing a real sin with real consequences, and in Jesus Christ’s substitutionary atonement as the only solution for our sin.

    It is not a question of whether my doctrine is sound; I am thoroughly in line with historic Christian theology (as expressed in the creeds and Protestant reformation) in my doctrines of God, Christ, man, sin, redemption, and so forth.

    I don’t question the truthfulness of Scriptures. I do strongly question the truthfulness of the teachings of Kent Hovind and other young-Earth creationists. On the topic of taxes Hovind was simply being disobedient. On the topic of science Hovind has said a number of things that have neither a scientific nor a Biblical basis.

    On a side note: the the 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution says nothing about income taxes being temporary, nor that they are only to fund wars. One may not like the law, but it is the law, and Christians should obey it. This is hardly a “we must obey God rather than men” issue.

    Comment by geochristian | November 6, 2009

  158. You constantly say Hovind made many comments which don’t have a biblical or a scientific basis this is simply untrue, Hovinds work is completely based around science fact and biblical revelation of those facts and he clearly states where both evolution and creationism are belief systems but one of them: evolution has collasped under the weight of evidence against it and Creationism or intelligent design theory is winning new converts every day now from those intellectually honest enough to look into them and see that the scientific evidence actually backs their theory.

    Just have a look at the movie “No intelligence allow” to see how the issue is subverted into an ad hominem attack, character assasination or constructive dismissal on anyone who validly with scientific backing opposes evolution theory.

    If you read Gentry’s book on radio polonium halos you can not refute the evidence that the earth was never and could never have been a hot molton mass, for those halos to be present in the earth it had to be created instantly. They couldn’t discredit his work or him so they rely on blocking him out of the mainstream and verbally rebuking his book with only negative reviews by anti christian types with no intellectual honesty.

    Dear Geo Christian if you read one book read Gentry if you have the intellectual fortitude and honesty necessary that is.

    I am sorry to hear you come from a liberal protestant background this is obviously interferring with your hearing the truth of the evidence Dr.Hovind and many other young earth creationist have presented. Even a Catholic like Michael Behe who is a scientist questions his own Catholic & Liberal protestant ecumenist on there belief in evolution. If your arguments can’t extend past ad hominem attacks and look at the science you will never be convinced cause you’ll be to afraid to stand out for truth and look like a fool. The breaching of the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing, or something like that…..

    Comment by Michael | November 6, 2009

  159. Michael:

    Even other young-Earth creationists have largely abandoned Gentry’s intial interpretation of polonium halos as being evidence of instantaneous creation of the Earth. Some of these halos exist in rocks that are obviously younger than rocks that YECs interpret as being flood deposits, and so cannot date back to the initial creation. The trend among young-Earth creationists (e.g. the RATE study) is to interpret these halos as evidence of accelerated nuclear decay during the flood. So you cannot say that critiques of Gentry come only from “anti christian types with no intellectual honesty.”

    If you look through my comments and other posts here on The GeoChristian, I don’t think you can point to any ad hominem attacks. It is not an ad hominem attack to point out bad aspects of his “science,” nor is it an ad hominem attack to point out his poor reasoning in other areas. I have given a number of scientific and Biblical reasons for rejecting Hovind’s teaching, and I’ll stick to them.

    I’ll also stick to the truthfulness of Scripture. Rejecting AiG/ICR/Dr. Dino creationism is not a rejection of the Bible.

    With respect,
    Kevin N

    Comment by geochristian | November 6, 2009

  160. So you’ve personally read Gentry’s book and overviewed all his articles? Have you ever called him to discuss his evidences I am sure he would be happy to entertain your comments and criticisms, in the cause of intellectual honesty why don’t you do it and record the transcript of your conversation as I am sure it would invalidate your lame counter arguement.

    Answer me how can a halo that only has a shelf live of 3 minutes or less exist in rock supposed to have cooled over eons and eons of time. If Radio Polonium halos exist in rock BELIEVED to be more recent than how does that disprove anything. You are trying to argue there is some other way for rocks to trap short lifed radio polonium halos therefore the earth is old. You are arguing from a lack of evidence.

    Comment by Michael | November 6, 2009

  161. Michael:

    No, I haven’t read Gentry’s book, but I have read some of his technical articles and have the background in nuclear chemistry and isotope geology to follow what he says. No, I am not going to call him.

    I’ll repeat myself: Other young-Earth creationists (e.g. ICR’s RATE team) have rejected Gentry’s idea that these halos formed at the creation of Earth. They say the halos formed during times of accelerated nuclear decay, either during the creation week or during the flood. Why then do you have to defend Gentry’s work?

    Comment by geochristian | November 6, 2009

  162. I don’t have to defend his work or Kent Hovinds, time is the great vindicator of truth, how is it the intellectually arrogant always refuse debate and try to regal us with there credentials and what others said so it must be right?

    Hovind is right on one thing, intellectually arrogant people always try to tell people they are to stupid to understand anything and so they intimitate intellectually forcing insecure people into caving into a shell.

    I read Gentry’s book cover to cover, I have read several books Hovinds people recommended and you can not refute that the evidence and information in them is being suppressed, as is the debate from the masses. A non believing Jew can make a movie about it “No Intelligence Allowed” and show the debate is more heat than light from those unwilling to even look at evidence for a young earth and special creation, and that they are oppressing the information and those who would bring this infomation to light. All this information would reaffirm peoples trust in an inerrant Bible.

    I don’t have to defend the concept of a young earth or Gentry or Hovind, I am asked however to give a reason to all who ask why I believe, I studied cognitive biology and there is no way a man born blind can be made to see, the neural pathways in the brain do not develop in the absense of simulation, therefore, an eye transplant wouldn’t suffice for someone born blind he would have to have vision for a short time as a child and then lost his sight for such medical assistance to see again. for a man born blind to recieve site God would have to create those neural pathways and the means for the brain instantaniously to interpret sight. The Jewish Talmud records that Jesus did these miracles but blasphemusly records them as the act of a magician. God entered his creation and showed his ability to create it instanteously with this miracle!!!!!!!! For here is a marvelous thing you claim to be his disciple and yet you deny his ability to create it fast in 7 literal days and for it to be young, restricting the God of the universe to your scientific expertise and limited understandings. God help all the Children of Pride to listen up, and I apologize for stating my credentials I refer all readers back the creator Jesus Christ’s credentials as my proof.

    Comment by Michael | November 6, 2009

  163. Michael:

    I am not questioning the inerrancy of Scriptures.

    I am questioning the wisdom of using Kent Hovind’s materials as apologetics. I think he seriously distorts science to make it fit his interpretation of Scripture. I prefer approaches that distort neither science nor Scripture.

    I don’t question God’s ability to create the universe in seven days (or in seven nanoseconds), nor am I questioning the ability of Jesus to heal a man born blind. I don’t think the Bible requires a 6000-year old Earth, and I question the doctrinal priorities of those who place young-Earth creationism up there with the Trinity or justification by grace through faith.

    Comment by geochristian | November 6, 2009

  164. I enter this debate with no scientific experience whatsoever; therefore, I am not going to argue theories or the laws of science. I have never set foot in a laboratory or conducted a single chemistry experiment; not even in high school. So if I tried to talk science it would not be worth much.

    I have viewed Kent Hovinds DVD recordings and, not being a scientist of any sort, thought they were marvelous. For many years the teaching of evolution in public school hindered my faith in the written word of God. After viewing the DVD’s, I was moved so deeply that for the first time I can remember I had a flawless confidence in the Bible. It gave me ammunition to fight the belief of evolution. For me, it was nothing short of the awesome power of God that led me to view the DVD’s. Because of Kent Hovind’s ministry, my faith is stronger than ever, and I have been able to share my faith more confidently with people. Some may call it blissful ignorance, but I think it was God’s work.

    Which brings me to my point, I don’t think that anyone can deny that Kent Hovind was a man of God and was trying to win souls for the Lord. That being said, should anyone bash a servant of God’s ministry in a public forum such as a web blog? Should anyone bash him for his sins and discredit his ministry because of them. I don’t think God would be very pleased with fellow Christians turning their backs on their own kind.

    Comment by Justin | November 30, 2009

  165. Should anyone call the sins and mistakes of ANY Christian leader as long as that leader is helping at least some people, even if he is harming others?

    Should no one have called Ted Haggard to account because his sermons were blessing many people who heard them?

    How about Joshua Sims who embezzled (apparently) almost a million dollars – should no one speak of that and instead just let him keep on doing what he has always done even though he was blessing his congregation?

    Should no one have called Hovind on his MANY scientific errors and his tax fraud because some people are encouraged by him?

    Of course the errors should be brought to light. I realize that you were encouraged and strengthened by what you heard, but should no one point out that a LOT of what you heard was false, even though you were still encouraged by it?

    Isn’t it far better that your assurance be founded on something that is true, and not the errors that Hovind promoted? Isn’t it far better that you not be using falsehoods when you use your “ammunition”?

    Comment by WebMonk | November 30, 2009

  166. It’s beyond me why anyone could put their stock in someone like Kent Hovind. At his “Dinosaur Adventure Land,” Hovind has a sign board labeled “That River Didn’t Make That Canyon,” which includes a photo of the Grand Canyon taken from space shuttle Discovery that has the direction of river flow labeled 180 degrees in the wrong direction (see http://roamingiomi.blogspot.com/2005/09/dinosaur-adventure-land.html and scroll down a bit)! If you look at the photo closely, Hovind’s labels also have the South Rim higher in elevation than the North Rim! The same labeled photo appears in his PowerPoint slide set “The Hovind Theory Part 1″ that you can order if you want to fork over something like $20. To make things worse, several young earth creationists have slightly modified Hovind’s slide and used it in their presentations without noticing the critical elevation errors (e.g., see Ashcraft’s “Geological Worldviews and the Global Flood” and Kindell’s “Worldwide Geologic Evidence of the Genesis Flood” at http://www.nwcreation.net/ . These folks make themselves out to be experts on geology and the Grand Canyon, but they can’t even orient an areal photo of the canyon correctly.

    Comment by Tim Helble | December 2, 2009

  167. It is so easy to criticize someone who can not respond because he is in prison. There is more, it’s a big issue about the taxes, who must pay and how much and where they are going. You guys do not discuss anything about Federal Reserve Bank, a privet organization, and buy the way, do you know that IRS is a privet organization as well? President Kennedy was killed like a dog, most people do not believe the official version of his murder and what can we do about it? The question is who is in control of this country, a president? Well, I do not think so… we lost our freedom guys and we are on the way to slavery. Hovind was not perfect, but he was a fighter.

    Comment by George | December 24, 2009

  168. Yup, bring out the cuckoos. “privet” Fed. “privet” IRS. Kennedy conspiracies. Secret rulers of the US. Supporters of Hovind.

    9/11 conspiracies are in there somewhere too, I’m sure. Planted explosives in the towers, “pancaking” collapse, melted metal, etc. Yup, bring out the Hovind supporters!

    Merry Christmas to all! (and look out for those silent black helicopters while you’re out watching for Santa)

    Comment by WebMonk | December 25, 2009

  169. Well, if that last comment is representative of Hovind’s detractors, Mr. Hovind has nothing to worry about.

    On a more interesting note – the rocks are indeed crying out. Here, if you haven’t already heard, is yet another experimental fact refuting the evolution delusion, and confirming the Genesis record of creation.

    The origin of granite has long been a problem for geologists. The current evolution-based theory (invented out of thin air), states that the granite structure of the earth’s crust formed as magma cooled over hundreds of millions of years. This assumption is fundamental to current theories of earth’s evolutionary formation over vast ages.

    Polonium 218 is a radioactive isotope found in granite all over the world. As it decays it creates a “halo” which is visibly preserved in granitic rock and which may be viewed under the microscope. Pictured below, this halo is the actual physical record of the emission of atomic particles as the nucleus decays (photos and details online – search on “polonium 218″).

    Note that these tiny halos are immediately erased by high temperatures (over 150 degrees C.). When granite is melted in the lab the halos are erased totally and the granite cools into rhyolite – not granite. Thus we can be sure that the halos were present primordially – at the original formation of the granite.

    Now here’s the good part. It turns out that the half-lives of the Polonium isotopes are only 3 minutes (+ ½ = 3 min for 218 Po), which is too short to allow for anything but an extremely rapid mineral crystallization. To make a long story short, their presence demonstrates that all the granite in the earth’s crust was formed in less than 3 minutes.

    Yes- you heard me right. So objectionable was this discovery to the evolutionist establishment that the National Academy of Sciences tried to bury it. But finally, after full and repeated peer review it has been published in some of the most prestigious scientific journals. Listen to some of their shocking (but welcome) admissions:

    “Current physical laws may not have governed the past “

    “Early primordial crustal rocks, rather than cooling and solidifying over millions of years, crystallized almost instantaneously.”

    “Some geological formations thought to be 100 million years old are in reality only several thousand years old.”

    “Grant these propositions – and any researcher will tell you the entire structure of the historical sciences would dissolve into themselves. Few certainties would remain. Yet these possibilities and others equally disintegrative have been published over the past several years in the world’s foremost scientific journals [including] Nature, Science, the Annual Review of Nuclear Science, among others.”

    NOTE: Experimental confirmation of these results is also to be found in uranium halos in granite (for different reasons) and through mass analysis of zircons extracted from granitic cores. Through this discovery and others, the evolution delusion – which contradicts every principle of science from the 2nd Law of thermodynamics to the simple laws of statistical probability, is gradually being replaced with real experimental facts. While the howls of protest continue, to date there has not been a single peer-reviewed publication to refute these experimental findings.

    The coyotes howl but the wagon train rolls on.

    For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. (Psalm 33:6,9)

    Comment by Gary Navarre | December 26, 2009

  170. So Gary, along with George, you think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the Fed and IRS are “privet” groups, there are secret rulers of the US, and the Kennedy assassination was a world-spanning conspiracy of the secret Illuminati or whoever?

    As far as the polonium halos go, that’s hardly something that bothers the standard old view of the earth’s formation. From what you put here, and what you put on many of your previous postings, you seem to rely on copy-pasting ideas that you don’t really understand.

    I’ll offer a really quick summary of just a few of the problems with Gentry’s polonium halos.

    First, he claims they are “primordial” rocks directly made by God, and unchanged since then. But, oops, several of the rocks he used weren’t granites, several were from rocks that were on top of existing fossils, and ALL of the rocks he found the “polonium” halos were in rocks that other Creationists ALL say were laid down in the Flood, not rocks made by God in the instant of Creation.

    Creationists themselves have debunked Gentry’s claims of polonium halos.

    Actually, I guess that was about three reasons that Gentry’s claim is incorrect, not just the first one.

    But continuing, Gentry requires that radioactive decay rates have varied in the recent past. This is something that Creationist organizations such as AiG and ICR have also suggested. You might have heard of their RATE study.

    The only problem – they require very different types of radioactive decay rates than Gentry. Their own study rejects that underlying causes that Gentry suggests.

    There are a multitude of other reasons that Gentry’s claim is false, but listing them would take far too long, so I’ll only start mentioning them if needed.

    Basically, if you believe Gentry’s ideas about the “Polonium Halos” then you have to reject all of the Creationist ideas about the Flood laying down the rocks we see, and you have to reject the latest RATE study put out by AiG and ICR. Gentry claims that the rocks with the halos are “primordial”, made directly by God at the Creation, while every Creationist geologist says those rocks he tested were deposited by the Flood.

    What AiG has done is shift investigation to halos (not just polonium) in sandstone, and have rejected the theory of primordial polonium halos in granite like you are claiming.

    You might want to catch up to date on your reasons, Gary.

    Comment by WebMonk | December 27, 2009

  171. Gary,

    You stated “But finally, after full and repeated peer review it has been published in some of the most prestigious scientific journals. Listen to some of their shocking (but welcome) admissions.” What “prestigious scientific journals” were these things published in? You should cite the journal names. (Webmonk – you should provide the source for your quotation also.)

    Similarly, you provided the following quotations as authoritative: “Current physical laws may not have governed the past,” “Early primordial crustal rocks, rather than cooling and solidifying over millions of years, crystallized almost instantaneously,” “Some geological formations thought to be 100 million years old are in reality only several thousand years old,” and “Grant these propositions – and any researcher will tell you the entire structure of the historical sciences would dissolve into themselves. Few certainties would remain. Yet these possibilities and others equally disintegrative have been published over the past several years in the world’s foremost scientific journals [including] Nature, Science, the Annual Review of Nuclear Science, among others.” What are the sources for each of these quotations?

    Geologists will not waste their time providing responses to claims that aren’t published in a serious peer-review journal. Therefore, if the “peer-review” journal you are referring to is something like the Creation Research Society Quarterly, you won’t see any refutations appearing in a peer review journal like “Geology” or “Geomorphology.”

    Comment by Tim Helble | December 27, 2009

  172. Attempting to link peer-reviewed and published science with 9/11 conspiracy theories is hardly the response of professional scientist. It sounds more like a frightened wannabe resorting to ridicule.

    As you can see above, a major point of my statement (in my own words – not cut & pasted) was that the radio halo mystery has indeed been peer-reviewed (for years) and has been published in prestigious journals. I specifically mentioned Nature, Science, and the Annual Review of Atomic Science. Are you saying that I have been mislead, then say so and offer proof. Or is it that you just can’t read well?

    I will indeed go back and research the source of those surprising quotations. The author in my understanding WAS NOT a creation scientist. We shall get to the bottom of it.

    Comment by Gary Navarre | December 27, 2009

  173. See R.V. Gentry publications in:

    Annual review of nuclear science
    Volume 23, 1973

    Nature 258, 269. 1975

    Science, vol. 184, pp. 62-66, April 5, 1974

    You really could have determined the veracity of my earlier entry by just going to R.V. Gentry’s web site and looking at the list of his publication credits. (http://www.halos.com/reports/index.htm). Better yet, click on one of his video presentations. Or is it your contention now, that in addition to not knowing the difference between sandstone and granite (I’m still giggling), that he is also a psychopathic liar? If the latter, then its a shame that only Chuck Norris can deliver a round-house kick to the face through email. You would deserve it for your impertinence.

    Now consider the following quotations. Note the stark difference in tone from your own (an * by the name means the quoted speaker is not known to be associated any with creation science organization). And keep in mind that while their have been attempts to refute Gentry’s conclusions, they have in turn been soundly refuted and the theory remains a formidable challenge to evolutionary cosmology.

    —”His [Gentry’s] conclusions are startling and shake the very foundations of radiochemistry and geochemistry. Yet he has been so meticulous in his experimental work, and so restrained in his interpretations, that most people take his work seriously. . I think most people believe, as I do, that some unspectacular explanation will eventually be found for the anomalous halos, and that orthodoxy will turn out to be right after all. Mean while Gentry should be encouraged to keep rattling this skeleton in our closet for all it is worth.”—*Edward Anders, Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, quoted in CTM, p. 236.

    —”Robert V. Gentry writes lucidly of his meticulous experimentation with radioactive halos in ancient minerals. Many scientists with international reputations, such as Truman P. Kohman, Edward Anders, Emilio Segre, G.N. Flerov, Paul Ramdohr, Eugene Wigner, E.H. Taylor, etc., have commented favorably in regard to Gentry’s integrity and the professional quality of his data.”—*W. Scott Morrow, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Chemistry, Woofford College, quoted in Creation’s Tiny Mystery [CTM], p. xi.

    —”To date there has been only one effort to dispute Gentry’s identification of polonium halos. As it turned out, that effort might better never have been written; the authors, having been impelled more by the worry that polonium halos, `would cause apparently insuperable geological problems,’ than by a thorough grasp of the evidence.”—*Talbott 1977, quoted in CTM, p. 47 [italics his].

    —”Robert V. Gentry is a scientist in the tradition of Galileo. He, his work, and his Weltanschauung [overall conception of life and the world] do not deserve the premature obituary that my evolutionary colleagues are preparing for it.”—*W. Scott Morrow, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Chemistry, Woofford College, quoted in CTM, p. xi.

    —”I have been patiently scanning the `letters’ section of Science since the publication, by you and your colleagues, of your findings on radiohalos. The silence is deafening—I think it can be interpreted as `stunned silence’ . . Your results will not greatly trouble the engineer, whether he is a mining engineer, a geophysical engineer, or a ground-water engineer. But the impact on the science of geology, in possibly changing the accepted views as to the duration of geologic time, will be felt for many years.

    — “We are indebted to you and your colleagues for your painstaking observation, the careful wording of your paper, and the courage you have manifested in presenting evidence that contravenes the conventional wisdom of the geological profession.”—*Raphael G. Kazmann, Professor of Civil Engineering, Louisiana State University, 1977 letter to R.V. Gentry, quoted in CTM, p. 60.

    —”Thank you … It is apparent that you and your coworkers are unearthing fundamental information which will be difficult, if not impossible, to include in the accepted, uniformitarian-evolutionary, scheme.”—*Raphael G. Kazmann, Professor of Civil Engineering, Louisiana State University, 1977 letter to R.V. Gentry, quoted in CTM, p. 60.

    —”The polonium halos, especially those produced by Polonium 218, are the center of a mystery. The half-life of the isotope is only 3 minutes. Yet the halos have been found in granitic rocks . . in all parts of the world, including Scandinavia, India, Canada, and the United States. The difficulty arises from observation that there is no identifiable precursor to the polonium; it appears to be primordial polonium. If so, how did the surrounding rocks crystallize rapidly enough so that there were crystals available ready to be imprinted with radiohalos by alpha particles from Po? This would imply almost instantaneous cooling and crystallization of these granitic minerals, and we know of no mechanisms that will remove heat so rapidly; the rocks are supposed to have cooled over millennia, if not tens of millennia.”—*R.G. Kazmann, 1979, summary of R.V. Gentry’s symposium presentation at Louisiana State University, April 1978, quoted in CTM, p. 61.

    —”If isotope ratios are to be used as a basis for geologic dating, then presently accepted ages may be too high by a factor of 10,000, admitting the possibility that the ages of the formation are to be measured in millennia. Thus ages of the entire stratigraphic column may contain epochs less than 0.-1% the duration of those now accepted and found in the literature.”—*R.G. Kazmann, 1979, op. cit., quoted in CTM, p. 62.

    —”I do not believe that Gentry’s contentions can be regarded as of a `rather startling nature.’ However, some of his experimental findings (like those of his predecessors) are quite difficult to understand, and the ultimate explanations could be interesting and even surprising. Many persons probably do not take them seriously, believing either that there is something wrong with the reported findings or that the explanations are to be found in simple phenomena which have been overlooked or discarded. I believe it can be said that Gentry is honest and sincere, and that his scientific work is good and correctly reported. It would be very hard to believe that all, or any, of it could have been fabricated.”—*Truman P. Kohman, Department of Chemistry, Carnegie-Mellon University, quoted in CTM, p. 236.

    —”We made sure that [Gentry] carried out his investigations very thoroughly . . Therefore his data deserves serious attention.”—*G.N. Flerov, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, quoted in CTM, p. 236.

    —”The very careful and time taking examinations of Dr. Gentry are indeed very interesting and extremely difficult to explain. But I think there is no need to doubt `currently accepted cosmological models of Earth formation’ . . Anyhow, there is a very interesting and essential question and you could discuss it, perhaps with cautious restrictions against so weighty statements like the one above in quotes. It would be interesting and good if more scientists would have more knowledge of the problems.”—*Paul Ramdohr, Emeritus Professor of Mineralogy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, quoted in CTM, p. 236.

    —”I can attest to the thoroughness, care and effort which Gentry puts into his work . . In a general way these puzzling pieces of information might result from unsuspected species or phenomena in nuclear physics, from unusual geological or geochemical processes, or even from cosmological phenomena. Or they (or one of them) might arise from some unsuspected, trivial and uninteresting cause. All that one can say is that they do present a puzzle (or several puzzles) and that there is some reasonable probability that the answer will be scientifically interesting.”—*E.H. Taylor, Chemistry Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, quoted in CTM, p. 236.

    —”Mr. Anderson is correct when he states in his letter that Dr. Robert Gentry is the world’s leading authority on the observation and measurement of anomalous radio-active haloes. Because of his recognized capabilities, Dr. Gentry’s research was funded by the Foundation during the early 1970’s.”—*Francis S. Johnson, Assistant Director, National Science Foundation, 1982 letter to Robert S. Walker, U.S. Representative from Tennessee, quoted in CTM, p. 255.

    —”Mr. Gentry has been a guest Scientist at ORNL [Oak Ridge National Laboratory] for the past 13 years. During this time, he has published nearly 20 scientific reports, some of which have received national recognition.”—Jim Sasser, U.S. Senator from Tennessee, 1982 letter to W.S. Heffelfinger, Department of Energy, quoted in CTM, p. 261.

    —”In my recent defense of Act 590 of 1981 (better known as the Creation-Science Law), I had the opportunity to become acquainted with several of the world’s leading scientists who testified on behalf of both the State and the American Civil Liberties Union. Of all the scientists involved on both sides of the lawsuit, no one impressed me anymore than Robert Gentry, who for the past several years has been a guest scientist at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.”—Steve Clark, Attorney General, State of Arkansas, 1982 letter to Dale Bumpers, U.S. Senator from Arkansas, quoted in CTM, pp. 172, 265. OUTSIDE MOST EXPERTISE—”Robert V. Gentry is widely regarded as one of the most conscientious and scholarly creationists. His research on radioactive halos is in a field outside the expertise of most scientists.”—*Karl Fezer, Concord College, in a 1985 statement, quoted in CTM, p. 182.
    I think the man’s credibility is clear enough. A couple last comments. First – all “science” of origins necessarily begin with some type of premise or bias. You have chosen the naturalistic evolutionary bias, and those you attempt to ridicule have chosen a creation bias. In my opinion, and in that of the single greatest scientist of all time – Sir Isaac Newton – your bias is impossible.

    Secondly, I have been a practicing professional archaeologist for a quarter century and currently own my own firm (Caprock Archaeological, Roswell, NM) which is duly accredited by the federal government and the state of New Mexico where I ply my trade. I have become interested in creation science because the evidence that they are producing is quite simply not to be explained away as easily as the establishment would have it, and quite frankly – I hate arrogance. I’m not at all impressed by the long, fuzzy, unsatisfying “refutations” from the establishment on everything from polystrate trees to radio halos. They all seem to boil down to the assertion that we just can’t believe what we see. Now that some one is actually looking for it, the evidence against the mindless, self organizing view of the universe is accumulating rapidly.

    Furthermore, it would seem, given the outright collapse of “organic evolution” and Darwinism – which gave birth to your evolutionary cosmology – that you might begin to see the hand writing on the wall. In any case, the more you resort to arrogant ridicule, the more you affirm that the establishment is truly frightened. Those who know the least are always the first to resort to character assassination, for their faith is most easily shaken. But this same pattern has prefaced every scientific revolution in history so we actually find your dismissiveness encouraging.

    In parting, I know you have only a geological background, but just what do you people do with, for example, DNA? How does this most most mind boggling expression of immaculate intelligence known to man form itself by, what was it, natural selection acting on genetic mutations? I’d really like to hear that!

    Comment by Gary Navarre | December 28, 2009

  174. Gary, what are you talking about? George in comment 167 starts spouting off about conspiracy theories, and I replied to him. Then you come to George’s defense saying “Well, if that last comment is representative of Hovind’s detractors, Mr. Hovind has nothing to worry about.”

    George is the one who brought in conspiracy theories, and then you backed him up. And then you say that linking conspiracy theories with YEC science isn’t good science – I agree, so you and George need to stop!

    Then, you don’t bother bringing any sort of defense of Gentry’s work except for a bunch of copy-paste quotes from guys who say Gentry is a great guy and great scientist. I don’t doubt it, but in his theory about the polonium halos that you brought forward, he was dead wrong and YECs have rejected his conclusions.

    If you want to agree with Gentry, then you need to go yell at AiG, ICR, and all the other YEC groups which have dismissed his conclusions.

    Since you seem to love copy and pasting, allow me to reply in kind with a quote from AiG that specifically states that they disagree with Gentry’s claim:

    Therefore, Gentry102, 103, 104, 105 proposed that the polonium had to have been primordial, created in place in the radiocenters and then nearly instantaneously produce the Po radiohalos. Furthermore, he maintained, if the Po was primordial, then the host crystals and rocks (for example, biotite flakes and their host granites) also had to have been created at the same time. However, as pointed out by Wise106 and Snelling,107 many granites that contain Po radiohalos appear from their geologic contexts to have been formed during the Flood, and therefore cannot have been primordial (that is, created) granites. This in turn implies that the Po which generated the Po radiohalos in those granites could not have been primordial Po. Indeed, Snelling and Armitage108 studied three specific Po-radiohalo–bearing granite plutons that they demonstrated had to have been generated and formed during the Flood.

    You can’t use Gentry’s findings as support for a YEC position unless you want to reject the positions of all the major YEC groups!!

    Comment by WebMonk | December 28, 2009

  175. Alright I’m confused. I had assumed I was talking to “geochristian” or someone who was filling in for him temporarily (and badly). Now I see there’s some clown out there named George who is big time into a public pride dance and the usual “let’s hate Hovind festival.” I have no time for these antics. I do not wish to interact with him. He seems to have a big problem with “cut and paste.” Hey George – somebody wanted citations so I gave them some. They demanded authortative quotations so I gave them some. What the hell does “cut and paste” have to do with the price of tea in china? Did you want me to make them up? Dump whole articles into the mailbox, or what???

    Kent Hovin could obviously best George in any test of knowledge or native intelligence yet devised. And you will never see Hovind stoop to wild insults against his opponents in debate like George of the jugle here. I know lots of guys like this. They never understand just how dime a dozen they are. I have no desire to interact with irrational people. I thought I was talking to web site host.

    Refresh my memory. Is this supposed to be a Christian-oriented science discussion or what. I don’t have time for a pointless hootenanny of hate with the likes of “George”.

    Comment by Gary Navarre | December 28, 2009

  176. Gary, again, what are you talking about? George has only written a single post, which supported Hovind and spouted off some conspiracy theory nuttiness. I poked a bit of fun at him, but then you came in and defended him and posted the false claims of Gentry.

    Can you not read the signature at the bottom of each post?

    Look at comment 167. It’s by George. It’s making nutty conspiracy claims.

    Look at comment 168. It’s by WebMonk (me). It’s taking George to task for his nuttiness.

    Look at comment 169. It’s by Gary Navarre. It’s supporting George’s nuttiness and making rejected-by-even-YECs claims about polonium radiohalos.

    Look at all the comments since. None by George.

    Now you say you’re having conversations with George. Huh?

    At the bottom of each comment, there’s a little line that shows who the comment’s author is. If you read those, it might clear up your confusion.

    Comment by WebMonk | December 29, 2009

  177. The Genesis account of creation, interpreted as a literal six-day creation of heaven and earth, has been saving souls for thousands of years. But now it seems from Geochristian’s old earth theory that all those souls were saved in delusion! Wow. That’s a remarkable thought, and one you will no doubt want to chat over with the Lord of Hosts when you meet Him.

    Billy Graham once reported that as a young man he had some trouble with certain Old Testament accounts, but that it wasn’t until he agreed in prayer to teach the Bible as inerrant that he received power to begin what was to become the greatest soul-saving ministry of the 20th century. Seems God may like His Bible just the way it is.

    “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to the trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:” 1 Timothy 6:20

    Comment by Gary Navarre | December 29, 2009

  178. I agree that Genesis points people to God as creator, as opposed to multiple gods or “mother earth.” However, it is Jesus Christ who saves souls.

    “I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren’t meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man… whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.”

    Billy Graham, Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, pages 72-74

    Comment by Tim Helble | December 30, 2009

  179. So, are you giving up your long-dismissed claim about Gentry’s “polonium radiohalos”? Are you denying your support of George’s conspiracy theories?

    Or, are you just trying to ignore all the many places you were wrong and change the subject?

    As far as your claim about the 6-24 creation account saving souls, that’s an awfully bizarre claim. Here I thought it is Christ who saves people from their sins. Silly me.

    Christians all over the world are saved in spite of errors of all sorts, because it’s not theological beliefs save a person.

    A person can be saved and believe in YEC, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, a hard-core Double Predestination sans Free Will, the eternal subordination of Christ to the Father, etc. EVERYONE who arrives in heaven will realize they had areas of error, perhaps dramatic error, in what they believed.

    EVERYONE who is saved is saved in spite of delusions and errors. YEC is nothing special. Double Predestination, Perpetual Virginity, Women’s Head Coverings, etc – millions of people for thousands of years have believed those things and still been saved.

    It is only faith in Jesus Christ which saves us from all the wrongness in our lives, not faith in a 6000 year old universe.

    Comment by WebMonk | December 30, 2009

  180. Whoops. Ninja’d by Tim. Nice quote of Billy Graham’s there.

    So Gary, what was that about God not blessing Billy Graham until he started to believe in a YEC?

    Comment by WebMonk | December 30, 2009

  181. Gary –

    We are straying a bit far from the subject of Kent Hovind, but I feel your comments deserve fair treatment. I agree with you that this should be a civil, Christian-oriented science discussion. We don’t want to make GeoChristian come back from his “blogbreak” and have to delete the uncivil posts!

    It would take quite a while to go thorough all the references you cited. I’m not a geologist (I’m a hydrologist), but I do have access to the journals Science and Nature, and it is possible to use their search engines to find out if there have been any responses to Gentry’s articles. The website you provided (http://www.halos.com/reports/index.htm) does mention Volume 258 of Nature, which was actually where both comments were provided by J.H. Fremlin (page 269) on Gentry’s article “‘Spectacle’ array of 210Po halo radiocentres in biotite: a nuclear geophysical enigma” in Nature 252 (which you didn’t mention) and Gentry’s response to Fremlin’s comments (pages 269-270).

    Interestingly, I found there is an article in Nature 278, pages 333-335 entitled “Polonium haloes in mica” by S. R. Hashemi-Nezhad, J. H. Fremlin and S. A. Durrani. Here’s the abstract for that article:

    “GENTRY has reported that some anomalous haloes found in ancient mica seem to arise from the alpha-decay of polonium isotopes only, without any observable long-lived beta-emitting precursors. Fremlin suggested that these might occur as a result of the diffusion of beta-emitting radiogenic lead isotopes from relatively distant or widely dispersed uranium or thorium inclusions, and the absorption of the lead ions by small preexisting inclusions of foreign material. As Gentry pointed out, this would involve abnormally high diffusion rates for lead. We have carried out experiments that demonstrate the possibility of such high rates. Here we also discuss the reasons for the absence of an excess of observable tracks left in mica by the recoil of the lead daughter when alpha-decay takes place in the polonium isotopes.”

    I might be missing it, but I wasn’t able to find anything on http://www.halos.com/reports/index.htm which attempts to respond to Hashemi-Nezhad, Fremlin, and Durrani’s article.

    Based on this preliminary search, it would seem that refutations do exist in the scientific literature for Gentry’s polonium halo theories. We could probably go back and forth for years debating whether Gentry’s polonium halo theories have been refuted or not, but I suspect the bottom line for you really isn’t science at all. Instead it’s a particular way of viewing everything in the world – a package of beliefs – sometimes simplistically referred to as one’s worldview. Such back and forth “it’s been refuted/no it hasn’t” disagreements remind me a lot of past engagements I’ve had when witnessing to Mormons. I could cite hundreds of examples from Mormon history which prove Joseph Smith and Brigham Young weren’t prophets, but the “true belilever” Mormon would still insist they were. It’s not about facts — there’s something deeper inside that’s involved. For the Mormon, realizing Joseph Smith and Brigham Young weren’t prophets could mean losing one’s family (even spouse and children) and friends. It would mean all the years of beliving Mormonism were wasted, and all the years one’s ancestors spent in the faith (crossing the prairie to Utah with handcarts, etc.) were wasted too. For the YEC believing Christian, realizing YEC is wrong could mean ostracism within ones church (or even being labeled as a heratic), loss of status with one’s friends, realizing how many years was wasted studying YEC literature, fear of “going liberal,” and related things like recoginzing that Rush Limbaugh isn’t always right and maybe we’d better do more about the environment and global warming.

    Folks like Ken Ham would say the bottom line is really Biblical authority. However, many Christians maintain that a careful reading of the early chapters of Genesis provides clues that the classic YEC interpretation is incorrect. I believe GeoChristian has discussed this in previous posts. I think what this blog is about is that you can still be a serious, Bible-believing Christian and accept the overwhelming evidence that the earth is old (as presented in many other posts here. One such group of scientists who are Christians are listed as one of GeoChristian’s links – the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA)(www.asa3.org) It’s worth checking into.

    Meanwhile, an article by three Christian geologists entitled “Theologians Need to Hear From Christian Geologists About Noah’s Flood,” which I think is worth reading, can be found at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/24318573/Geologists-Noahs-Flood-Paper-at-ETS-by-Wolgemuth-Bennett-Davidson. There is also a good article in the June 2009 volume of the ASA’s Journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith entitled “Flood Geology and the Grand Canyon: A Critique” by Carol Hill and Stephen Mosher, which includes a section showing how Flood geology isn’t supported by the Bible. However, it won’t be available to non-ASA members on the web until June 2010 or so.

    Comment by Tim Helble | December 30, 2009

  182. Gary,

    Earlier, you stated Gentry wasn’t a member of any creationist organization. However, in a real sense Gentry is — he’s a Seventh Day Adventist — the original champions of young earth creationism during the 20th century. This is admitted in a recent article on one of their conference’s websites (http://www.carolinasda.org/news_entries/5719). The following are excerpts from that article:

    “…Seventh-day Adventist scientist and creation advocate, Dr. Robert Gentry came to Boone, North Carolina to present a public program on polonium halos…

    …Seventh-day Adventists were the original champions in the fight against evolution. Ellen White spoke out against it in the book Education, and George McCready Price wrote several books about it in the early 1900’s…”

    So in a strange way, we’re letting a bunch of Seventh Day Adventists trouble us.

    Comment by Tim Helble | December 30, 2009

  183. To all:

    Thank you very much for your comments. I’ve had spotty internet access for over a month, but should have internet at home next week.

    A special thanks to Tim and Webmonk for your excellent comments in my absence, with many insights I would not have had.

    Kevin N

    Comment by geochristian | December 30, 2009

  184. The quotes that I sent reviewing Gentry’s work and methodology were made by scientists (identified by asterisk), that are not known to be affiliated with any self-described creation science organization. Of these you say nothing, but of Gentry himself you say that “in a real sense” he is indeed a creation scientist. And why is it that you say this? Because he goes to church. Is your guilt-by-association strategy now to include God’s house as well as His creation ministry?

    And if referencing the Bible is “changing the subject”, I’m wasting time here. Its simply like this. Because all Biblical writers were informed by a single author, the Holy Bible is a seamless work from start to finish. When you mess with Genesis, you run afoul of almost all books down the line. To illustrate I quoted Psalms 33:6,9 – “For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast”.
    Therafter it only gets worse for you, for Jesus Himself confirmed the word-for-word reliability of the Torah account. And He has the advantage of having been there.

    The hallmark of all successful ministries is the confident preaching of the inerrancy of the Bible. Unregenerate flesh is not able to do this. One must indeed be ‘born of the Spirit’, because He who saves us is exactly the same “I AM” that spoke Genesis and the rest of the Bible to Moses, Abraham, and the rest in the first place! And He informs that failure in preaching innerrancy is an immediate tip-off that the ministry is not ordained of God (Once, Jesus warned that a certain parable was actually designed to conceal a difficult truth, so that His desciples would know “outsiders).”

    Thus you must never presume to revise the plain teachings and traditional understandings of Genesis, thinking you’re doing God a favor. For you inadvertently denounce the One who delivered all scripture. This comes perilously close to that one unforgivable sin – blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (and besides, God neither needs or appreciates the help).

    The genuineness of Hovind’s ministry is thus proven, for even as he languishes in jail, his mere CDs continue to bring thousands before the Lord, while your own self-appointed “ministry” bears no fruit. The Holy Spirit of God confirms inerrancy and Hovind bears all the earmarks of the true born again believer. It can’t be faked – for no one would be saved. He preaches Biblical innerrancy with confidence and great joy – right down to the FACT of creation in six 24 hour days. His minstry is approved by the Holy Spirt and thus bears much fruit. Yours does not and cannot. Never mind every little detail of Hovind’s science. The fact is that he has the important basics dead right. His message liberates. The Spirit saves.

    What we are all involved here is not about science. You are immersed in spiritual warfare, and do not realize it. All things on earth are under God and are therfore of interest to His adversary. The Gospels warn us that in the last days especially, our “science” of origins, will be of particular interest to the latter. How better to assault belief than provide an alternative creator and religion?

    And so we are warned that in the final days our very science will preach a false creation!

    “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to the trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:” (1 Timothy 6:20).

    “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: By which the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished”.

    You preach Noah but not instantaneous creation! Amazing. Do you think geology is not uncorrupted? The entire fields of physical and paleo anthropology (my disiplines), as well as paleontology, have been decieved by the powerfully beguiling idea of evolution for more than century without a shred of fact! It began with Darwinism and quickly spread. The ideas behind the theory of organic evolution were so powerfully beguiling that it has persisted in the absence of physical proof for all this time, and persists among many to this day despite irrefutable evidence against it now available via the grace of God and the electron microscope.

    Simply put, the reason that the fossils never cooperated with Darwin is the plain one – true evolution never happened. We now have bedrock confirmation of what the fossils (not to mention the Bible) were always telling us. With the magnificent, immaculate, and thoroughly un-evolvable world of the cell and DNA before us, the facts are inescapable for the reasonable man. All errors in gene replication, and all other mutations produced by accidental means, always and only decrease genetic information. They never, ever increase it. They certainly have not created it. Spiritual warfare. Not science. We were utterly deceived by an idea so powerful in its conception, and so elegantly beautiful in its explanatory powers, that we didn’t need hard evidence! Why, it HAD to be true. Where did such an irresistable idea come from?

    The entire fields of evolutionary cosmology and geology are inextricably bound up (in their respective origins and philosophy) with the advent of Darwinism and its necessary and allied assumption – uniformitarianism. Never dream for even a second that the field of geology somehow stands alone, sanctified. It is founded on the same false assumption and aided by the same courts who have legislated the God of creation out of the “science” of creation. We have indeed received perecisely what God promised for those who wander from the outline of creation that He provided as our strong anchor. And that was and is “strong delusion”, so that they will “believe a lie” (singular) specifically about the creation.

    Get out of there. You are persecuting the true Body of Christ without realizing it. Before I received, I used to promote “theistic evolution.” I was dead wrong.

    Comment by Gary Navarre | December 31, 2009

  185. Gary,

    What data do you have access to to support your contention that “your own self-appointed ‘ministry’ bears no fruit?” BTW – mine is just getting started. Would you have any data to support the idea that the work of organizations such as the American Scientific Affiliation or Reasons to Believe have borne no fruit?

    Consider Kent Hovind’s “Seminar 6 – The Hovind Theory.” Would you say he was demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit when he stated in reference to professional scientists “Ignorance can be fixed. Stupid is forever?” Do statements like that bear “all the earmarks of the true born again believer?”

    Comment by Tim Helble | December 31, 2009

  186. You are quite correct in citing Hovind’s proudful boasts and foolish condemnation of his brothers in Christ. Pride is what got St. Paul himself sequestered in Tyre for 10 years. When he emerged to begin his great ministry – he was a changed and very humbled man. It wasn’t about him he had to learn. Thereafter he was a self-effacing vessel through which the Holy Spirit might work to greatest effect. I’m betting Hovind will emerge from his exile a changed man as well.

    Now back up the line I notice that GC remarks to the effect that Billy Graham’s comments as quoted by Tim somehow “Ninja” Billy’s other testimony as I relayed to you. I don’t see it. Billy is not schizophrenic and I passed his testimony faithfully. There is no conflict unless one re-writes my rendering to include something called “YEC”. Billy never said that he preached something called “YEC”, nor did I suggest otherwise. The term used was “inerrancy” – Billy said that he agreed to preach the word as written. There is a difference, and I see no conflict between the respective statements.

    That said I must make something clear. Understand that no one is condemning you. What is being condemned on this site is your willing and vociferous condemnation of your creation science brothers! Perhaps that is a reaction to Hovind’s silly posturing, but whatever it is, it remains a huge and glaring problem of which I spoke when I first commented here with great indignation – Get off Hovind’s back! Newly ‘born again’ after a profound encounter with the Holy Spirit, I couldn’t believe what you were doing!

    John 13:34-35: 34″A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

    A sign unto others! Do you know that I have been confronted disdainfully and heard it said about Christians – “you can’t even agree among yourselves what is true!”

    Hovind’s remarks were arrogant and foolish. But look carefully at what you are doing here. In condemning Biblical literalists the “sign” you are sending to others is the precise opposite of what Christ intended! In condemning creationists you deny His great and final commandment, for it is by our love for one another that others will know us – or reject us.

    So this is my challenge. Preach as you are led, but in the name of Jesus Christ, excise from your ministry all condemnation of creation scientists. We are not in some sort of competition! Embrace them. Love them. Preach what you will and the let the respective fruits of our respective labors speak for themselves. My plainly spoken indignation as a newly reborn Christian “Get off Hovind’s back!” finds absolute scriptural support and elaboration in John 13:34-35. To continue to condemn Hovind and others is not compatible with this great commandment of Christ Himself – and outside of obedience to that commandment we cannot serve any good purpose. All of us must convene around this unequivocal commandment.

    All who lift up the name of Jesus are brothers. That said, it seems to me that most of the persecution and condemnation I hear is coming from the evolution-based scientists, not the creation-based sort. This alone speaks volumes. Therefore let us preach only good and positive things, for you gain nothing in condemning other believers except your own condemnation, and the doubt about us that is spread because we attack one another! Guess who celebrates when we do.

    We have enough trouble with Satan condemning the brethren, so I challenge you to remember His commandment every time you begin to write. This entire site seems all to often to based around ridicule and condemnation of those who teach and submit evidence of recent creation. Lose it! You don’t need it and you are defying Christ Jesus Himself. You cannot serve Him in this way. If we cannot agree on this – something is wrong with us.

    Comment by Gary Navarre | December 31, 2009

  187. Gary – I agree with what you are saying. I can’t speak for all other posters here, but probably most, in saying I try to reserve my criticisms for creation science rather than attacking specific creation scientists. However, I admit it is hard not to cross the line. Also, it is sometimes easy to interpret criticism of creation science as criticism of specific individuals, especially when one is a YEC. As Kevin pointed out at the start of this thread, creation science, specifically many of Hovind’s statements, actually bring shame to the name of Christ and His gospel and that is my greatest concern.

    There are YECs in my church who love me as a brother in Christ and I do the same for them. They know where I stand on the young earth/old earth issue and I know where they stand, but we don’t let that get between us. The advancement of the Gospel is more important.

    Comment by Tim Helble | December 31, 2009

  188. Gary (#177) said, “The Genesis account of creation, interpreted as a literal six-day creation of heaven and earth, has been saving souls for thousands of years. But now it seems from Geochristian’s old earth theory that all those souls were saved in delusion!”

    I rejoice when someone comes to faith in Christ, even if it is through a means that I disagree with, such as AiG/ICR/Dr. Dino style young-Earth creationism. If they were saved because they put their faith in Jesus Christ, then they were truly saved, even if there was something in error in their reasons for coming to faith in Christ.

    But as Webmonk has pointed out, it is not young-Earth creationism that saves. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. People who are thus saved might still be wrong about other things, such as their positions on the age of the Earth, baptism, Biblical inerrancy, predestination, Mary, eschatology, and so forth.

    Comment by geochristian | January 3, 2010

  189. Gary:

    It is not unchristian to point out the errors and potential consequences of those errors in the positions taken by Christian leaders.

    I am not acting improperly if I point out the theological errors of the health and wealth “gospel” if these point people to Christ as someone who will give them a new car rather than to Christ as savior from their sins. Likewise, I am not acting in a way contrary to Christian love if I point out that the teachings of the young-Earth creationism movement in general, and Kent Hovind specifically, unintentionally drive many people away from Christ. My hope is to gently persuade people to not use bad arguments in defense of the truth of Christianity, as these arguments can backfire.

    I am not questioning that people come to genuine saving faith through Hovind’s ministry. People come to genuine saving faith through old-Earth ministries as well, such as Reasons to Believe.

    I will close comments on this post soon.

    Comment by geochristian | January 3, 2010

  190. Closing this post?!?!?!? NOOOOOO!!!!! *done with a dramatic scream to the sky*

    Well, probably it is for the best.

    I’ll try to get something in at the last minute based on something Gary pointed out about Billy Graham. He said Graham was a staunch defender of inerrancy in the Bible. But, Graham had no troubles with an “Old Earth” understanding of the Bible conflicting with an inerrant Bible.

    Maybe it would be good to have a discussion about Creation – recent or ancient – that keeps in mind that both views are not inimical to inerrancy. While obviously one of them is wrong, neither view necessarily rejects the truth of Scripture. Remembering that both views can hold the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God might keep the rhetoric down to a more productive level.

    Or, maybe not.

    I’ve witnessed a few Calvinist/Arminian debates that make this one look calm, cool and collected.

    Comment by WebMonk | January 4, 2010

  191. Gary I completely agree with what you had to say in your post and cannot understand why there are some people out there who still believe in evolution and an old earth expecially when their is no science to prove it.

    Science supports creation and a young earth because God said he created the earth in a matter of days. Is there any scriptures to support the theories that these days actually mean millions of years? No

    Is there any science to support this absurd theory? No

    The fact is evolution is the direct opposite of what God has revealed to us regarding His creation and purpose, it is a new THEORY which has evolved itself and has millions of different theories within itself in fact i cant find one evolutionist who completely agrees with the other lol

    Yes Hovind may not have been perfect with his ministry but now he has been punished by the law and is serving his sentence as you said Hovind will probably come out a better man and his ministry will grow even more I truly believe this and believe that Hovind has brought many more souls to Christ than creator of this blog in fact i think the very purpose of this blog has become its own enemy and is also turning people away from Christ how can people who read these posts come to terms with who Jesus is when we cannot even agree amongst ourselves as believers…

    I cant see how people can be turned away from Christ because of debates over science to make such a claim means you must have evidence of this can you support the claim with the evidence?

    If anyone accepts Christ as their saviour i find it impossible for them to turn away because of a silly argument over the age of the earth

    Anyway good luck with you ministry Geochristian may you save many souls i pray that you will

    Take care & God Bless your souls

    Comment by Thyran | January 4, 2010

  192. Thyran,
    If you would be interested in following a link, you might be interested in the blog of Todd Wood – a YEC biologist who works for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). He is their preeminent biologist, with an expertise in genetics.

    He has written a couple blog posts that is very much on the topic of “no evidence for evolution” which you bring up.

    Here’s the post most directly on target: http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

    I would highly suggest going to read it, but if you don’t want to check out what one of the preeminent Creationist biologists in one of the biggest Creationist organizations says about evolution, I’ll do a copy-and-paste of what he said:

    Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

    Comment by WebMonk | January 4, 2010

  193. We must distinguish between evolution with a big “E” and its little brother, so-called microevolution. If Todd is implying there is proof for the molecules-to-man theory of evolution by which the public has been beguiled than he is indeed crazy whether he knows it or not. Ask him for evidence of the power of natural selection acting on accidental mutations (of what?)to create upward evolution by introducing new and beneficial genetic information. Literally – to build DNA itself. Its called natural selection, not natural creation, for a reason. In order for the principle to work, it requires a durable, reproducing and genetically complex creature to begin with. Macroevoltution and microcevolution are decoupled.

    “Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs.” Grasse, Pierre-P. [editor of the 28-volume “Traite de Zoologie”, former Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences], “Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation”, Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.8.

    Comment by Gary Navarre | January 4, 2010

  194. Hi Webmonk

    I expected your reply to be honest :)

    Please can you explain how Todds persnoal blog has proved evolution to be scientifically correct lol

    All he has done is stated that evolution exists however he gives no support of evidence for his claim

    Perhaps i should easily convinve you that evolution doesnt exist by putting up a blig and stating so then posting the link here for you proof that it doesnt exist :)

    Really do you honestly believe you are an ape evoloved over millions of years well to be honest from your post i can see why you think this

    When you have some real evidence and proof id love to go through it but please i think i actually lost a few brain cells reading your posted link

    bettel luck next time….

    Comment by Thyran | January 4, 2010

  195. Gary, if you had bothered to read his blog, you would see he was clearly referring to a “Big E” Evolution, “macroevolution” as you phrase it.

    I’m very glad to have such a distinguished person as yourself here; a veritable fount of knowledge about biology and genetics who can so reliably set us all straight about the crazy Dr. Wood.

    He has decades of study and experience in cellular genetics and microbiology and is a well respected Creationist, and while some might be inclined to consider his words seriously, you have boldly warned us away from such a nonsensical thing, clearly explaining that Dr. Wood is off his rocker, totally crazy, and completely deluded.

    You need to go contact the Institute for Creation Research and warn them that they have a crazy person on their staff as their lead creationist biologist!!!!!

    Comment by WebMonk | January 4, 2010

  196. Thyran, you lost a few brain cells reading through the blog of one of the preeminent biologists on ICR’s staff? You lost brain cells reading the blog of a guy who has written numerous articles supporting a YEC position for Answer in Genesis?

    I think you need to join Gary and start picketing the Institute for Creation Research and Answers In Genesis headquarters. Tell them to get rid of that crazy Dr. Wood, who is obviously a traitor hiding in their midst.

    Comment by WebMonk | January 4, 2010

  197. Yes Webmonk

    I feel like i loose a few brain cells after reading claims without supporting evedience regardless of who they are dont you?

    Or do you often just accept what people tell you?

    Yeah he may support YEC but he also supports evolution where does he stand how can you believe in both :)

    cant believe i had to point that out its the first thing i realised about his blog

    Well can you show me where the evidence of evoltuion is on your link ?

    So are you then a believer that you are an evolved ape? or which type of evolutionist are you?

    Comment by Thyran | January 4, 2010

  198. You know, I think I’m going to follow the same path as Dr. Wood did. He had a bunch of people asking him the same question after he wrote his post.

    He gives an answer too. I’m not going to bother giving you the link for it though. You’ll have to find it yourself. It’s not hard. It’s on his blog.

    Go argue with him.

    Comment by WebMonk | January 4, 2010

  199. i dont need to argue with anyone

    i know that evolution is just a theory and that the bible doesnt support it thats good enough for me

    however if you have evidence of evolution then by all means as i have said countless times before to you please show me but i think you should understand evolution is just a theory

    you still havent answered me as to whether you believe you an evolved ape or which evolution theory you support

    Comment by Thyran | January 4, 2010

  200. Thyran, obviously you didn’t do as I suggested. Go do what my post said, and his answer is my answer.

    Then, since you’ll have my answer, Dr. Wood’s answer, and as you said you don’t need to argue with anyone, that should wrap everything up quite nicely for you.

    Voila! All done!

    Comment by WebMonk | January 4, 2010

  201. Oh, and W00T! 200+ Comments!!!!

    Comment by WebMonk | January 4, 2010

  202. Though long-suffering and faithful, even the good Lord says he will not strive with us indefinitely.

    It is essential to come to grips with the complete inability of accidental mutation to do anything but damage existing genetic information. I suggest Michaeol Behe’s “The Edge of Evolution”, or perhaps a new book out by L.M. Spetner called “Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution.” By the time you’re finished you will understand the problem and wonder how you ever believed natural selection as a creator of anything. It is a tinkerer, not a creator, and actually promotes stasis in a species – not evolutionary speculation. Until you read for yourselves you will continue to be befuddled in your thinking about “evolution.”, and so will “Todd” or whomever.

    Comment by Gary Navarre | January 4, 2010

  203. That’s what I love about you Gary, you’ve read a couple lay books and are so wonderfully equipped with knowledge and understanding of genetics that you can tell one of the top cellular biologists in the Young Earth Creationist camp that he’s full of nonsense and is crazy.

    I’m afraid I don’t have your towering intellect. I’ve read Behe’s Edge of Evolution, and I have to admit I don’t have your incredible confidence that I understand those issues better than someone like Dr. Wood who has not only read Behe’s book, but would be fully qualified to write it. Dr. Wood still states what he does.

    Gary, you’re a lesson to us all – your unlimited confidence, your amazing comprehension of genetics and cellular biology, and your braveness in declaring Dr. Wood to be crazy and deluded.

    Comment by WebMonk | January 4, 2010

  204. I’m afraid its not just me-

    “All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that’s a lot of nonsense.”
    Archeologist and paleo-anthropologist Mary Leakey, interviewed three months before her death (Associated Press (AP) Dec. 10, 1996)

    “Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong… The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science.” I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.

    “We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other.” Professor Jerome Lejeune: From a French recording of internationally recognized geneticist, Professor Jerome Lejeune, at a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985. Translated by Peter Wilders of Monaco.

    “Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs.” Grasse, Pierre-P. [editor of the 28-volume “Traite de Zoologie”, former Chair of Evolution, Sorbonne University and ex-president of the French Academie des Sciences], “Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation”, Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.8.
    “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” — Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,

    “I think we need to go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this is an anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” H. S. Lipson; Prof of Physics, University of Manchester, A paper published by The Institute of Physics, IOP Publishing Ltd., 1980

    “We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists.” Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc., p.2

    “I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.” George Wald (Nobel prize for Medicine in 1967). “Frontiers of Modern Biology on Theories of Origin of Life” (New York:Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. 187.

    BOTHERSOM DISTRESS;. “Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. …They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.” , STEPHEN J. GOULD (Noted evolutionist) Harvard, Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980

    “WE KNEW BETTER”, “And it has been the paleontologist, my own breed, who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: …. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not.”, NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum Of Natural History, TIME FRAMES, 1986, p.144

    “With the failure of these many efforts [to explain the origin of life] science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.” Eiseley, Loren C., [late Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania], “The Immense Journey,” [1946], Vintage: New York NY, 1957, reprint, p.199.

    Sir Fred Hoyle (Nobel Prize – Astrophysics) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (professor of applied mathematics and astronomy) admitted that they were ‘driven by logic’ to conclude that there must be a Creator. “It is quite a shock,” said Wickramasinghe. The Sri Lankan-born astronomer explained: “From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. Once we see . . . that the probability of life, originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect ‘deliberate,’ ” or created. Professor Wickramasinghe also said: “I now find myself driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. . . . We were hoping as scientists that there would be a way round our conclusion, but there isn’t.” (As quoted in “There Must Be A God,” Daily Express, Aug. 14, 1981 and “Hoyle On Evolution,” Nature, Nov. 12, 1981, 105.)

    Comment by Gary Navarre | January 4, 2010

  205. Im Gary Dr Wood knows better :) lol

    Comment by Thyran | January 4, 2010

  206. One is copy-pasting piles of out-of-context quotes which could be “countered” by amassing a hundred times more quotes, and nothing would be changed.

    The other is writing punctuation-less gibberish. “Im Gary Dr Wood knows better”

    The thread needs to be closed. I retract even my joking objection to closing the thread.

    Comment by WebMonk | January 4, 2010

  207. Webmonk

    I invite you to see why evolution is not the teaching of the Bible by going to this link

    Scroll down to the first table on the comparison of 1st creation story with the theory of evolution:

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_bibl.htm

    what have you got to say about that? Will you now disregard the Bible as nonsense to support your faith in evolutionsim?

    Comment by Thyran | January 4, 2010

  208. Or how about Evolutionary Arrogance by Henry Morris, Ph.D

    http://www.icr.org/article/4750/

    Comment by Thyran | January 4, 2010

  209. Please do close it. Suggesting that God created man as decendants of monkeys through a death process is an insult to both the Bible and Jesus Christ.

    Comment by Gary Navarre | January 4, 2010

  210. My oh my, you all have been busy today. I appreciate each one of you.

    WebMonk (#190), and others — I agree that inerrancy and the age of the Earth are separate issues. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy purposefully stayed away from the whole age of the Earth question. Many of the authors of this document were young-Earth creationists, but were wise enough to recognize that many old-Earth Christians also believe in Biblical inerrancy.

    Thyran (#191) — Welcome back to the conversation, and I appreciate your prayers. Can you point to a passage in the Bible that prohibits biological evolution? I don’t think you can.

    Webmonk (#192) — Todd Wood has certainly stirred up a hornets nest in the YEC world with his well-informed comments about evolution being good and valid science. He is a young-Earth creationist who is honest enough to say “Hey, evolution really does work.” He rejects evolution not for scientific reasons but for Biblical reasons (Biblical interpretations that I obviously don’t agree with).

    Thyran (#194) — Please read Todd Wood’s excellent YEC blog carefully before dismissing what he has to say.

    Thyran (#197) — I personally have not taken a position on ape to human evolution. I know Christians who accept the entire molecules to man scenario—while holding to essential Christian doctrines such as sin and redemption in Christ—and I know old-Earth creationists who reject most of evolution. My training is in geology, not paleoanthropology. If all you read is YEC literature, this will sound like foolishness to you, but I suggest that you broaden your horizons a bit.

    Thyran (#199) — “Evolution is just a theory.” Yes, evolution is a theory. In science, a “theory” is a well-demonstrated system of reasoning. It is not a hunch or a wild guess. It can still, however, be wrong (e.g. the geocentric theory).

    Gary (#202) — My main beef with Hovind’s “science” isn’t his views on biological evolution. In some of these cases he may be correct. His views on geology and Earth history, on the other hand, are usually quite wrong. Don’t take my word for it; ask the prominent young-Earth organizations. By the way, Michael Behe is not a young-Earth creationist, and I don’t think Spetner is either.

    WebMonk (#203) — I have plenty of background in biology, biochemistry, and paleontology, but I couldn’t tell you whether Behe (intelligent design), Wood (“evolution works well but I don’t believe it anyways”), or Francis Collins (evolution is God’s means of creation) is correct. I respect each of these men.

    Gary (#204) — Some of these quotes are clearly taken out of context.

    Thyran (#207) — You make a mistake when you assume that those who accept an old Earth or evolution “disregard the Bible as nonsense.” That statement in itself rather nonsensical. I have a very high view of Scripture, and take it very seriously.

    I’ll close comments tomorrow night (1/5/2010).

    Comment by geochristian | January 4, 2010

  211. Geochristian

    I can ask you the same question can you point to a scripture in the bible that condones biological evolution no you cannot :)

    I have read Todd Woods blog very carefully and cannot see where he has proven biological evolution except for the fact that he says it is true can you explain where by science he has proven it to be irrefutable?

    So you not an evolutionist then you dont believe we were derived from apes sorry its really hard identyfing what type of evolutionist a person is these days there are billions of different theories and none agree with the others :)

    As for the comment on 207 what have you got to say with regards to how evolution is not according to the scripture in the bible with regards to the table?

    I cant see how you can believe in both when they contradict each other in terms of scripture about what order things were created in?

    The popular theory of evolution is that we evolved over time from apes that is a fact so you now saying that type of evolution is inaccurate but evolution does exist

    i beg you please to explain? what evidence do you have the evolution exits?

    Concerning the age of the earth what evidence do you have that it is billions of years old? none that is scientifically based you believe it by faith :) hence the reason why evolution is a religion on its own separate from Gods revelation

    Comment by Thyran | January 5, 2010

  212. Thyran (#211) — Again, my point is not that the Bible condones biological evolution, but that it doesn’t prohibit it either. Evolution quite simply is a scientific issue, not a Biblical one. So I cannot point to a verse or passage that says, “Evolution certainly occurred,” nor can you point to a place in the Bible that says, “Evolution certainly does not occur.”

    The most common verse used by young-Earth creationists to “prove” that evolution does not occur is in Genesis 1 where organisms reproduce according to their “kinds.” All this is saying is that horses reproduce horses and that daisies reproduce daisies. Variation can occur from generation to generation. There may be limits to that variation, but the Bible leaves it up to us to figure out if those limits exist and what they are. It is a scientific issue.

    The current trend among young-Earth creationists is to advocate hyper-rapid evolution after the flood, at a rate that would make most “evolutionists” blush.

    Comment by geochristian | January 5, 2010

  213. Thyran 207 – did you actually look at that page? It is giving a set of Biblical reasons why Evolution and the Bible are NOT incompatible.

    Did you actually pay attention to that site? It is supporting the exact opposite of what you claim, and yet you think it’s supposed to somehow validate what you’re saying???

    Gary, you say it is insulting to the Bible and Jesus Christ, and yet Billy Graham – the very person you upheld as a defender of inerrant scriptures – disagreed with you. C.S. Lewis vehemently denounced atheistic evolution, and yet he held a generally theistic evolution position.

    Can you not at least understand that even should an old earth and Evolution turn out to be false, that it most certainly isn’t an insult to the Bible, nor does it somehow require a rejection of the Bible?

    One of the very people you brought up to support your view, Billy Graham, held that Evolution was in no way incompatible with a faithful and honest understanding of what the Bible says. Are you saying that Billy Graham was insulting the Bible? Are you saying Ken Ham is insulting the Bible because he believes the universe is billions of years old? (read Starlight and Time) Was C.S. Lewis insulting the Bible?

    If you say that supporting a universe billions of years old is an insult to the Bible, then you are saying Billy Graham, C.S. Lewis, and Ken Ham are all insulting the Bible.

    That’s an awfully bizarre claim.

    Comment by WebMonk | January 5, 2010

  214. There were many in the past who did not have the tools we have today. Many good men therefore attempted to accomodate evolutionary principles into their faith (Remember though, that many stood fast).

    But the fact remains that The Bible does NOT condone molecules to men, for this form of evolution is a long, accidental death process which cannot be reconciled with God’s Word wherein He created a “very good” creation and wherein death itself entered only by sin and disobediance to the creator. No matter how much you like the theory of evolution – the creator’s naturalistic mimicker – He flat tells us He didn’t do it that way! You can thus never reconcile Darwinism to the Bible. One is true, and one isn’t.

    Darwinism has been called “the greatest engine of atheism ever invented”, and it also underlies evil philosophies like communism, Nazism, and humanism. Now Jesus said the “truth will set you free”, but Darwinism has given us slavery and death. By this means alone you can see that something is wrong with the latter.

    Now here’s the key. Today we have never enjoyed more in the way of scientific tools by which to disprove Darwin than we have since the day this apostate divinity student arrived on the scene. Indeed, if he had owned an electron microscope, the ‘Origin of Species’ would never have been written. This is your meat. Fully confront the scientific impossibility of molecules to men by accident. Remember that it isd the idea – the theory – that “works.” There are no biological proofs for it. Only blockades. I beleive it is the “strong delusion” regarding the creation of which St. Paul wrote, whereby they “will believe a lie.”

    We have the science now. There is no longer any need to make deals with the devil.

    Comment by Gary Navarre | January 5, 2010

  215. It is obvious that some have been blinded for the sake of the gospel

    I resign all my further comments and agree with Gary totally on everything he has had to say throughout this blog

    No one has made more sense and brought more facts to the table

    May you find salvation in your religion evolutionsim to whoever supports it

    I know the Bible does not support it and that is good enough for me.

    Comment by Thyran | January 5, 2010

  216. Gary (#214) — The Bible does not say that animal death came into the world through Adam’s sin, as I’ve written about elsewhere. Take a closer look at Gen 3, Rom 5, Rom 8, and 1 Cor 15 (the passages used by YECs to “prove” that the Fall lead to all death), and you will see that none of these passages say anything whatsoever about animal death.

    Again, my main beef with Hovind is his geology, not his biology, but you keep on going back to biology.

    Comment by geochristian | January 5, 2010

  217. Thyran (#215) — You said “May you find salvation in your religion evolutionsim to whoever supports it.

    If I haven’t made it clear enough that my salvation is found in Christ alone as revealed in the Scriptures alone, I don’t know what else I can do.

    Many young-Earth creationist leaders have drilled it into the heads of their followers that “old-Earth equals compromise” or “old-Earthers don’t believe the Bible” or “old-Earthers aren’t Christians.” This is utter nonsense, and the distortion of the gospel that this involves is very serious.

    Comment by geochristian | January 5, 2010

  218. :) what makes you think the earth is old?

    Comment by Thyran | January 5, 2010

  219. Gary and Thyran So Billy Graham, Ken Ham, C.S. Lewis, and Dr. Wood are now all examples of people who “accommodate evolutionary principals into their faith” and are “blinded for the sake of the gospel”?!?!?

    (BTW, Thyran, what on earth is “blinded for the sake of the gospel” supposed to mean? I guess it was intended to be derogatory, but it doesn’t make sense. Punctuation, spelling, complete sentences, and coherent phrases would all help your communication.)

    Can you really not see how ridiculous a claim that is? Claiming top YEC groups and people are all Bible compromisers and deniers?

    Gary, “Darwinism” hasn’t given any of those things you claim: Communism and Humanism came BEFORE Origins was published. Check your history. Hello? Marx wrote the Manifesto in 1848, 11 years BEFORE Darwin published Origins. At best you can say atheism produced Communism. Humanism, in its modern form, started way back in the 1700s. Unless you are claiming some sort of evil time warp power for Darwin’s book, “Darwinism” couldn’t possibly have caused those things.

    Hitler was racist based on cultural reasons and directly REJECTED genetic/Evolutionary supports for his views in Main Kampf. Check your history.

    You’re right that the Bible doesn’t “condone” molecules to men, and neither does it reject it. It doesn’t require an old earth any more than it requires a young earth. It is SILENT on the subjects other than to say God created everything and that He created it very good. Death to humans entered the world through Adam and Eve’s sin, it doesn’t say anything about animals. The Bible suggests that the death it mentions is a spiritual death rather than merely a physical death, though possibly God could have made Adam and Eve immortal; the Bible doesn’t give details.

    It is people’s interpretations which try to read in things like no animal death before the Fall and a 6-24-6000 creation. NONE of those things are specifically required by the Bible, but are rather interpretations.

    Gary – the man you promoted as a champion of Biblical Inerrancy, Billy Graham, understood this. You should learn from the person you hold up as a hero!

    Gary and Thyran, you guys can have the last word here. This was my last post on this thread. God bless you both.

    Comment by WebMonk | January 5, 2010

  220. 2 Corinthians 4:4
    The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

    We do know that God created the earth in six days in the beginning Genesis 1:1-31

    Genisis 2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

    So if the earth was formless and empty without life and light how could it be of age? There was no light before the first day how do you explain billions of years in a formless earth without life or light?

    and this is why evolution is not biblical it is not in accordance with the Bible

    Its rather simple really cant see why anybody has problems understanding this unless they have been brainwashed into evolutionism and been blinded by their faith in it

    Anybody care to explain how the earth can be billions of years old when there is no light or no form? Surely you understand that light is needed for growth in any life form?

    I would love an answer to this simple question :)

    Comment by Thyran | January 5, 2010

  221. Sovereign Lord, you made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them. You did these by means that we scarcely understand, and you stated that it was all “very good.” We acknowledge that you are perfectly capable of creating a fully-functional universe in six days or in six nanoseconds. We also acknowledge that you are perfectly capable of creating a universe with the ability for atoms and molecules to organize themselves in amazing ways; even in life if you were to choose to make it so. We acknowledge that your ways are higher than ours, that your Word is truth, and that you do not lie, whether in your special revelation or your general revelation.

    Look on your servants with mercy. Help us to love and respect one another; to have the unity of the Lord Jesus Christ even when we don’t see eye to eye on matters that are important to us. I pray that you would teach each one of us greater humility, even as you teach us more about your Word and your creation.

    We pray that those in your church, whether they hold to a young Earth or an old Earth, whether they accept evolutionary theory or not, would seek to use sound reasoning when we talk to each other, and even more when talk to the world around us. Help us to see through the fog to understand your Word and your creation a little more clearly, for we admit that we have ignorance in terms of both.

    I confess that I could be wrong in some viewpoints that I hold very deeply; that I could be blinded by my own pride and presuppositions. I pray for myself that I would repent in those areas where I am thinking, acting, or speaking falsely in this whole topic of origins.

    I pray for those who are proclaiming the gospel in a science context or to scientists. This would include young-Earth creationists, old-Earth creationists, and theistic evolutionists. I pray for wisdom, insights, humility, boldness, and the fruit of people brought to faith in Christ, or strengthened in their walks with Christ.

    I pray for Kent Hovind, who is in prison. I pray that you would sustain him through his Word and through fellowship. Grant him the perseverance he needs as he is separated from family. I pray that he would come to a better understanding of where he is right and where he is wrong, whether it be on creation or taxes. I pray that he would come out of this time as more of the man of God you want him to be.

    Thank you for the goodness of your creation, which continues to bless us even in our fallen state.

    In the name of our wonderful God and Savior, Jesus Christ, the creator and sustainer of the universe. Amen

    Comment by geochristian | January 5, 2010


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 149 other followers

%d bloggers like this: